A libel lawyer, yesterday

A couple of weeks ago David Allen Green poked some gentle fun on Twitter at the habit of certain lawyers of professing themselves to be variously but profoundly surprised, shocked, and appalled by whatever behaviour they are writing to complain about.

As David said (I paraphrase, as the exchange is no longer available), the offices of London’s leading libel practices must, if their letters are taken literally, be in a state of shrieking alarm at some outrageous slur or other on an almost constant basis. One fears for the mental health of these sensitive and delicate souls.

Perhaps it is not surprising that libel lawyers should be the drama queens of the legal world, posturing and flouncing rather in the manner of their celebrity clients. Except that they are not by any means unique in this regard.

It is not uncommon for a certain type of commercial lawyer to profess their justified anger, or (much worse, obviously) profound disappointment at the raising of some point or other in the course of negotiation. Like a dowager duchess finding a housemaid to be over-familiar, they are distraught at the sheer effrontery.

The man who asked for direct loss of profits to be excluded

Often this is accompanied by some rather queenly condescension about “the market position”, or perhaps some reference to “my 20 years of experience in this field.” There might be a bit of amateur dramatics, with eyes rolled, sighs heaved, and even (for the true artiste) papers chucked.

But while some lawyers probably are prone to unleashing their inner Mariah Carey when crossed, all this drama is obviously more often a tactic. The old litigation advice, to present your strongest face first, has perhaps been carried over into non-contentious matters.

This approach clearly works on some level, else it would not be employed so extensively. Where costs are high (in litigation), or there is an imbalance of bargaining power (in transactional work), a little tactical anger goes a long way.

And in some ways, it’s all in the game, all part of the theatre of the law. In the manner of Captain Renault, we are shocked, shocked! at the very differences and disagreements from which we earn our livings.

Shocked!

One wonders, however, if it has become a default mode for some lawyers. All too often the flounce and the tantrum are used in place of persuasion and argument, in circumstances where the latter would be more appropriate and the former is counter-productive.

Does anyone seriously think, for example, that defendant libel lawyers read of the surprise and shock felt by their correspondents and think, “Well, if my client has upset them that much…”? I imagine that what most lawyers, including those self-same correspondents, would do is to calmly analyse the facts and the law before advising their client on how to respond.

But the initial instinct of others might be to say, “Right, if they’re going to be like that…” and dig their heels in a little more. Result: entrenched positions and a long, expensive and bad-tempered process.

Evidently this is not just my personal bugbear, as the lawyerly archetypes described in this wonderfully intemperate blog by Nicky Richmond for The Lawyer show. (Nicky, you may not be surprised to learn, tweets under the handle @saysitstraight). 

What makes all this particularly ridiculous is that the lawyers who use these tactics almost certainly see through them well enough when on the receiving end themselves. They bridle when condescended to by other practitioners, and yet continue to believe that this is an effective way to negotiate.

I could conclude by quoting the biblical dictum to do as you would be done by. I’m not a religious man, though, so I’ll leave you with the sage advice of Mr Michael Winner: Calm down, dears.

Giving it some humpty

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

The new year brings a new letter from one of my more regular freeman on the land correspondents. In an exciting addition to the woo theory for 2012, this one is headed “All words and phrases carry the meaning that I intend.”

I assume that my correspondent’s intention is to counter my annoying habit of insisting on a standard English interpretation of words when parsing his increasingly bizarre despatches from planet woo. He can now answer every objection by saying, “Ah, but that’s not what I meant.”

Perhaps, like so much of freeman theory, this is based on a vague conception of how lawyers use language. When we write contracts, we agree that certain words and phrases will carry a special meaning for the purpose of that specific contract, which may or may not correlate to the natural meaning of those words.

But those special definitions are, of course, a mutual agreement between both parties to the contract. Defined words are capitalised, and the corresponding definitions are set out clearly (one hopes) in the contract itself, so that readers who were not involved in the drafting and negotiation can understand what is intended.

Perhaps the freeman thought process is, “Lawyers can decide what words mean, and therefore so can I.” Thus the freeman might believe that objections to their, er, unique approach to meaning (like the ‘berth’ = ‘birth’ bobbins) can be sidestepped altogether.

But I do wonder where this leaves the freeman claims that their theory represents the true law of the land. (Which land? Any land, apparently).

After all, if anyone can choose what meaning their words bear, and isn’t obliged to disclose that meaning to their interlocutors, how is any consistent application of law possible? On what basis would a court, even if constituted in accordance with the common law as conceived by the freemen, adjudicate between competing claims?

Such a system of law would have a certain entertainment value, I suppose. And the alternative explanation, that the statement is just an expedient and slightly desperate attempt defeat any counter-argument that creditors might put forward, surely can’t be true, can it?

Ahem.

Accountants – Insolvency Practitioners – Recovery Experts

TO ALL KNOWN CREDITORS

22^nd December 2011

Dear Sirs

THE SANTA CLAUS GROUP – IN ADMINISTRATION

We give you notice, per paragraph 46 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 that on 21^st December 2011 Toby John Barr-Humbugg and James Alexander Funless, each of Elves and Young LLP, were appointed Administrators of the Santa Claus Group (“the Company”) in the North Pole District Registry. A notice of the Administrators’ appointment has been delivered to the Lapland Registrar of Companies.

In recent weeks the Company has been experiencing cash flow difficulties as a result of the need to purchase stock (in the form of presents to be delivered during the coming Christmas period) before payment (in the form of mince pies and sherry) is received.

The Company has also been become engaged in litigation to enforce its intellectual property rights, and has itself been the subject of several employment and breach of contract claims. This has resulted in a further depletion of cash resources.

We also understand that the Company has become subject to regulatory scrutiny following separate allegations that it has breached consumer protection legislation, invaded customers’ privacy, and failed to comply with immigration and child protection regulations in relation to its Elvish workforce. This has lead to further uncertainty about the Company’s ability to continue trading as a going concern.

You will appreciate that, as a result of the Administration, your account with the Company is frozen (literally as well as figuratively). You should provide a detailed account of the amount owing to you as at the date of Administration, together with details of any security that you may hold, for the attention of the Administrators at the address given at the foot of this letter.

We also note that, due to the somewhat disordered nature of the Company’s record keeping (which we understand was based on “elf magic”), we have been unable to identify the intended recipients for the presents currently stored at the Company’s warehouses. This, together with the lack of operating capital, means that the Company will not be able to effect any deliveries during the coming Christmas period.

If you are one of those recipients, therefore, you should submit an account of the value of presents ordered in the manner indicated above. A proof of claim form is attached for that purpose.

Prior to our appointment, we instructed Grinches as agents to conduct a valuation of the Company’s assets. Grinches valued the Company’s stock and plant at £952,362 at present market value, as against liabilities of £1,360,251,115.

However, we are able to confirm that, immediately following our appointment on 21^st December, we completed a sale of the Company’s business and assets to Kris Kringle Limited (“the Purchaser”). The sale consideration was £1,632,0120.32, which is considerably in excess of the break up valuation.

Please note that as part of this sale the Purchaser acquired the Company’s customer list. Our understanding is that they intend to contact over the next 48 hours all those who had arranged delivery of presents for the coming Christmas period, to advise them regarding alternative purchase and delivery options. Please note, however, that any claim you have against the Company may not be set off against such purchases.

In the meantime, the Administrators will prepare proposals for a distribution of funds, which will be submitted to the Company’s creditors within 8 weeks of the commencement of the Administration. A meeting of creditors will be convened thereafter to consider those proposals.

Please note that the Administrators are agents of the Company and act without personal liability.

Yours faithfully

SNOOPY, RED & BARON LLP

When your privacy counts, you can count on us!

21 December 2011

Dear Sirs

Re: Santa Claus Group and Little Timmy

Data Subject Access Request under s 7 Data Protection Act 1998

We understand that you act for the Santa Claus Group.

We have been instructed by a Mr Timothy Taylor (commonly known as “Little Timmy”) to request, on his behalf and under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, all information regarding Little Timmy held by the Santa Claus Group, including Santa plc, Rudolph Logistics Limited and Elf Enterprises Limited.

In particular, please provide details of:

1. All personal data relating to Little Timmy held by the Santa Claus Group;
2. Which entity in the Santa Claus Group is the “data controller” in connection with the personal data;
3. The purposes for which the personal data are being processed;
4. The class of recipients to whom they are being or may be disclosed;
5. The physical location(s) at which the personal data is/are being stored and processed; and
6. How and from whom the personal data has been or is being collected.

In respect of the identity of the data controller, I note that none of the companies named at paragraph 1 are recorded on the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) register of data controllers. You should be aware that it is a statutory requirement for organisations that process personal information to notify the ICO of that processing and that failure to notify the ICO may constitute a criminal offence.

In relation to the physical location of the personal data, my client is concerned that his personal data may be being processed outside the EEA, namely at the North Pole. If so, we fail to see how you can be satisfied as to the adequacy of the laws in force in the North Pole with respect to the protection of personal data for the purposes of the eighth data protection principle. We understand that no country currently owns the North Pole or the region of theArctic Oceansurrounding it and accordingly that no such laws are in force.

Notwithstanding the above, our client’s primary concern relates to the means used by the Santa Claus Group to collect the personal information on which it has based its decision that he has not been “good” and should be added to the “naughty list”. Our client maintains that he has not consented to the collection of this personal data, whether directly from him or from a third party.

It has come to our attention in this regard that the Santa Claus Group itself has distributed the following propaganda regarding its principal, a Mr Santa Claus:

“He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!”

Our client demands an immediate explanation as to how Mr Claus knows these things. Our client informs us that, with the exception of naps taken during the allotted time in his primary school class and the few occasions he has fallen asleep in the car while returning to his home, he sleeps only in the privacy of his bedroom and with the door and curtains shut. It is reasonable to infer therefore that your client’s knowledge can only have come from (what our client alleges to be unauthorised) access to the confines of his private property.

Our client also has concerns that information about him may have been obtained from unlawful access to his Spiderman phone, the use of surveillance, and/or the records of the responsible authorities that should not have been available to Mr Claus (namely, Little Timmy’s school reports and/or the diaries and correspondence of his legal guardians). You should be aware that he has instructed us to write to the Leveson Inquiry seeking the broadening of its scope to cover activities by bodies such as yourself and that Little Timmy will seek to appear before the Inquiry himself to tell his story.

Finally, our client believes that the information obtained by your client regarding Little Timmy has been or will be used for the purposes of a decision that significantly affects him (namely his eligibility to participate in your client’s annual present delivery programme) based on an automatic processing of that information to evaluate his conduct. We hereby give notice under section 12 of the Data Protection Act 1998 that no such decision may be made based solely on information processed by automatic means and, to the extent any such decision has already been taken, require that the decision is reconsidered or a new decision is taken based on alternative means.

We await your response.

Yours faithfully

SNOOPY, RED & BARON LLP

19^th December 2011

Dear Sirs

Re: Agreement between the Santa Claus Group and Little Timmy

We were most concerned to receive your letter of 16^th December, in which you allege breach of warranty on the part of our client and indicate your client’s view that it is thereby relieved from its own obligations under the Agreement.

For the avoidance of doubt, our client denies any such breach. He contends that he has met the standard of behaviour required by clause 2.1 of the Agreement, which we would remind you was agreed to be “a reasonable level of behaviour with reference to the standards generally held to be acceptable for children of a similar age, nationality, and socio-economic and ethnic background.”

We would in particular direct your attention to the following evidence: that our client has performed his weekly washing up duties without substantial complaint; that he has tidied his room on at least 3 occasions during the relevant period; that he has at all material times refrained from profanity within the hearing of his mother; and that he has not pulled his sister’s hair on more than 10 occasions during the relevant period.

We therefore require that you confirm by return of post that you intend to perform your obligation to deliver the Presents between 11pm on 24^th December and 5am on 25^th December. Our client confirms that he will meet his own obligation to make mince pies and sherry available during that time.

In the event that we do not receive such confirmation, we put you on notice that our client intends to apply to the Court for specific performance of your client’s obligations and/or damages to the monetary value of the Presents.

We are also disturbed by your reference to a so-called “Naughty List”, on which you claim to have placed our client. You state that this is a register maintained by your client of all children who have not been “good” during the relevant year and who in consequence will not receive deliveries of presents from your client.

For the avoidance of doubt, we consider your placing of our client’s name on that list to be unwarranted and inappropriate. Further, our client would consider any publication of that list to be defamatory and damaging to his reputation with his peers, parents and teachers.

We therefore put you on notice that unless we receive an undertaking from you that your client will not make such publication we intend to seek an injunction to restrain it from doing so. We also seek confirmation that your client has removed Little Timmy’s name from the list.

We look forward to receiving an appropriate response from you by return of post.

Yours faithfully

ELVISH IP

Patents * Trade Marks * Designs * Copyright

1 Polar Bear House, Santa Claus Lane, The North Pole

16 December 2011

Dear Sirs,

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT

We act on behalf of the Santa Claus Group, one of the world’s leading and most widely recognised semi-philanthropic gift manufacturers and sleigh-borne delivery companies. The business, which was previously known as Father Christmas Inc, has traded continually since 1458 and now consists of several group companies including Santa plc, Rudolph Logistics Limited and Elf Enterprises Limited. We are responsible for the protection of all Santa Claus Group brands throughout the world.

It has come to our attention that you have been using out client’s intellectual property in an unauthorised and infringing manner. If this use does not cease immediately we will have no option but to bring the infringements to an end by means of legal action.

TRADE MARK INFRINGEMENT

Our client is the owner of a number of registered and unregistered trade marks including, but not limited to:

• “SANTA”, “SANTA CLAUS”, “HO! HO! HO!”, and the Jolly Fat Man in a Red Suit device, all in the name of Santa plc;
• “RUDOLPH”, “RUDOLPH THE RED NOSED REINDEER” and the Red Nosed Reindeer device, all in the name of Rudolph Logistics Limited; and
• “ELF MAGIC” and “MADE BY ELVES” in the name of Elf Enterprises Limited.

(Hereinafter the “Santa Claus Marks”)

These registrations cover a wide range of goods and services including, but not limited to:

• Class 6 – Bells for animals, namely reindeer; animal collars (fur-lined);
• Class 9 – Surveillance apparatus (sleep monitoring devices and good/bad distinction devices);
• Class 12 – Sleighs;
• Class 28 – Children’s toys;
• Class 35 – Lists (compilation of); lists (checking of); lists (checking of for a second time);
• Class 37 – Manufacture and repair of toys (specifically by means of elf-magic);
• Class 39 – Arranging delivery of gifts (by air); delivery of gifts (by air); distribution of goods (mainly toys);
• Class 41 – Entertainment and cultural activities, exhibiting of animals (namely reindeer);
• Class 45 – Surveillance systems provided by elf magic; surveillance of children (for determination of behavioural nature and categorising on the St Nick Naughty/Nice scale).

(Together the “Santa Claus Goods and Services”).

We note that you have been using the Santa Claus Marks to promote your services at the Lapland Shopping Centre, St Nicholas Street, The North Pole. Your use extends to the use of “Santa”, “Santa Claus”, “Ho! Ho! Ho!” and the Jolly Fat Man in a Red Suit device to promote, inter alia, the distribution of toys, list-making, and the provision of entertainment and cultural activities, as well as related retail services.

At no time has our client authorised your use of the Santa Claus Marks in this way and as a result, your use amounts to an infringement of our client’s trade marks.

PASSING OFF

Your use of identical marks in relation to identical services also indicates that you deliberately intend to confuse the public and take advantage of our client’s goodwill and reputation by suggesting that the goods and services of the Lapland Shopping Centre are in some way connected with, or endorsed by, our client. This amounts to passing off.

In the event that you continue to use the infringing materials to promote your tawdry and non-magical retail services our client is likely to suffer a loss in mince pie, sherry and carrot revenue and will also suffer damage to its extensive (and expansive) reputation as both actual and potential customers may believe that they are dealing with our client or a business endorsed by them.

In addition, customers may not return to our client in the future as a result of any negative impressions of your business (including those related to kissing mothers under mistletoe). This is a particularly significant consideration in an already overcrowded present-provision industry where customer service, discretion and reliability are of utmost importance.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Our further investigation into your trade mark infringement, as set out above, has also led us to discover your infringement of our client’s copyright in their proprietary dramatic work (hereinafter the “Santa Claus Performance”). The Santa Claus Performance is a well-known dramatic work with the following distinguishing and internationally protected features:

• Jolly male lead character in a red fur suit (see also trade mark infringement of jolly fat man in red suit device referred to above), with twinkling eyes, merry dimples, cheeks like roses and a nose like a cherry, droll little mouth drawn up like a bow, beard on chin as white as the snow, stump of a pipe held tight in his teeth (with optional smoke encircling head like a wreath depending on jurisdiction and related smoking legislation), round belly that shakes when he laughs (similar in nature to a bowl full of jelly) and ability to ascend and descend chimneys and similar flue-related items by means of laying his finger aside of his nose.
• Scenery including grotto, stacks of presents, reindeer-driven sleigh;
• Supporting cast of green and red-clad elves with pointy ears, long noses and pointy hats and shoes;
• Script featuring key distinctive elements including “Ho! Ho! Ho!” (see also infringement of trade mark of “HO! HO! HO!” referred to above), “Happy Christmas” and “Happy Christmas to all and to all a goodnight”.

Your performance of “visit Santa’s Grotto” on level one of the Lapland Shopping Centre (opposite Elf-Pound Land) clearly constitutes the infringing acts of performing and making adaptations to our client’s original dramatic work, the Santa Claus Performance, without the authorisation of our client as the copyright owner.

In the circumstances, the infringing acts detailed above are unacceptable to our client and entitle us to commence infringement and passing off proceedings against you to seek, amongst other remedies, injunctions, compensation and legal costs.

In order to avoid proceedings for infringement you should provide the following undertakings:

1. You will cease and desist from using the Santa Claus Marks in the course of trade in relation to the Santa Claus Goods and Services;
2. You will cease and desist from passing off your services as connected to those of our client;
3. You will cease and desist from performing the Santa Claus Performance or related dramatic works;
4. You will refrain from using the Santa Claus Marks, performing the Santa Claus Performance and using any other intellectual property belonging to the Santa Claus Group in future, without our client’s prior written consent.

Please provide the undertakings by 5pm on Friday 23 December 2011. If the signed undertakings are not received by us by this date, we may commence infringement proceedings against you without further notice. In the meantime we reserve all of our client’s rights.

Yours Faithfully,

Elvish IP LLP

Festive Claims Specialist

Personal Injury – Employment – PPI – Consumer Credit

“Where there’s grit there’s a writ”

20^th December 2011

 Dear Sirs

 MR BARRY CORDUROY

CLAIM FOR UNFAIR DISMISSAL

We act for Mr Barry Corduroy, a former employee of The Santa Claus Group (“the Group”). Mr Corduroy has instructed us to commence proceedings against the Group for unfair dismissal.

Mr Corduroy was employed by the Group in the capacity of Assistant Elf until 14^th December. His duties involved, inter alia, toy making, present wrapping, stock picking, and carol singing.

On 1^st December, Mr Corduroy was invited to a meeting with his supervisor, Mr Norman Grinch, and the head of HR, Mrs Barbara Blitzen. At that meeting, Mr Corduroy was informed that he was to be subject to disciplinary proceedings, on the grounds of poor performance, refusal to carry out reasonable instructions, and breach of confidence.

On 8^th December, Mr Corduroy was invited to a further meeting with Mr Grinch and Mrs Blitzen. At that second meeting, he was informed by Mrs Blitzen that his employment was to be terminated with immediate effect. He was asked to hand in his security pass and pointy hat, and to leave the premises immediately.

It is Mr Corduroy’s contention that the allegations against him are demonstrably untrue and discriminatory, and that his dismissal on those grounds is therefore wholly unfair.

In particular, he responds to each of the allegations and intends to claim as follows:

1. Poor performance (1)

The allegation made against Mr Corduroy was that he failed to achieve the required level of quality and productivity in his role as Assistant Elf, and that he failed to improve in either respect despite being given additional coaching.

You will no doubt be aware that notwithstanding the description of his role, Mr Corduroy is not ethnically Elvish but is in fact a human. It is well known that humans lack certain magical skills that are characteristic of elves.

Despite this, Mr Corduory was subject in his work to the same targets as his Elvish colleagues in respect of toy-making and other tasks, despite lacking the magical skills necessary to achieve them.

It is our client’s contention that subjecting him to the same targets as his elvish colleagues, and disciplining him for failing to meet the same, amounted to unlawful discrimination on grounds of race.

2. Poor performance (2)

We are instructed that Mr Corduroy pointed out his disadvantage compared to his magical colleagues to his supervisor, Mr Grinch, on many occasions. Mr Corduory asked either for his targets to be relaxed or for technological aids to be provided to approximate the magical skills enjoyed by his colleagues.

Mr Grinch took no action in relation to these requests. Indeed, on several occasions documented by our client Mr Grinch told Mr Corduroy that if he felt unable to meet the required standard he should seek employment elsewhere.

Our client contends that his lack of magical skills amounts to a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Group’s failure to either relax his targets or provide technological aids therefore amounted to a breach of the Group’s duty to make reasonable adjustments in respect of that disability.

3. Refusal to carry out reasonable instructions

Towards the end of November, Mr Corduroy was informed that he would be seconded to the Group’s Delivery Team during the period from 23^rd December to 25^th December inclusive. We understand that the function of this team is to effect the delivery, on an annual basis, of presents to various locations around the world on the evening of 24^th December and the early morning of 25^th December.

Mr Corduroy was reluctant to join the Delivery Team, because the work is physically demanding, involving as it does visits to upwards of 100 million households in the course of some 8 hours. It is also dangerous due to the speed of travel, the precarious nature of the various landing and take off areas, and the notoriously poor safety record of the Santa2000 Sleigh-Liner.

Mr Corduroy understandably felt that it would be more appropriate for the Delivery Team to be staffed entirely by elves, due to their aforementioned magical characteristics, and communicated this to Mr Grinch. Mr Grinch’s response was that Mr Corduory’s contract required him to undertake whatever duties were asked of him, at whatever location, and that he therefore had no choice in the matter.

It is Mr Corduroy’s contention that it is not reasonable for the relevant contractual provision to be interpreted and exercised in such a broad manner. It his further contention that the Group’s decision to do so is discriminatory for the reasons referred to at (1) above.

4. Breach of confidence

Mr Corduroy has for some time harboured doubts about the chief executive of the Group, Mr Santa Claus. We understand that Mr Claus is never seen at the premises of the Group, and that there is a persistent rumour circulating amongst the work force that he does not exist.

Given that the Group trades on the image of Mr Claus, and in particular his reputation as a kindly and beneficent old man, Mr Corduroy was understandably concerned that the children of the world are being misled by the Group’s advertising and other promotional activities. He attempted to raise this with Mr Grinch, but was rebuffed in dismissive terms.

This did not allay Mr Corduroy’s concerns, and he therefore contacted the Office of Fair Trading and the Advertising Standards Authority. It is our understanding that these organisations have written to the Group to request further information about its trading practices.

In the meeting of 1^st December, Mrs Blitzen told Mr Corduroy that his action in contacting the aforementioned regulators was a breach of his contractual obligation of confidentiality to the Group. This was a major reason for his summary dismissal at the meeting of 8^th December.

However, it is Mr Corduroy’s contention that in contacting the regulators he was making a protected disclosure within the meaning of section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That makes the Group’s decision to dismiss him unfair by virtue of section 103A of the 1996 Act.

On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear that The Santa Claus Group has unfairly dismissed our client and has unlawfully discriminated against him. We therefore invite your proposals for compensating him in respect of his loss of earnings, and for injury to feelings.

We look forward to hearing from you in due course, and in any event within 14 days of the date of this letter.

Yours faithfully

WINTERVAL & SNOW LLP

 Non-Negotiable

 Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent. Notice to Agent is Notice to Principle.

Notice to One is Notice to All

 © Timothy of the family: Taylor Authorised Representative for

TIMOTHY TAYLOR^TM and all derivatives thereof 

15th December 2011

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Dear Interloper

Reference Number: LB/SC/30123456

Thank you for your recent contact. I do not understand the contents.

Your demand for mince pies and sherry on behalf of SANTA CLAUS is clearly fraudulent. As lawyers you are surely aware of the following principles of the common law:

1. The uppercase name TIMOTHY TAYLOR on your gift tags is not my name, but a ‘corporate entity’ or straw man. (Blacks Law Dictionary)

2. Your client SANTA CLAUS is a corporation and cannot enter into lawful contracts. The contract is therefore an unlawful contract as it is a unilateral agreement signed only by me. (Contract Law)

3. Your client SANTA CLAUS creates Presents out of thin air – he has no presents to give to children. (Fractional Reserve Gifting)

4. Your client has not provided any consideration under the contract, because the Presents are worthless ‘electronic items’ on computers. (Internet Shopping)

5. I am not lawfully bound to pay anything which is unsigned. (Bills of Exchange Act 1882)

You must therefore provide verification of your claim, including:

• validation of the Presents: the actual accounting;
• a lawful contract with valid consideration for the said mince pies and sherry;
• a hand signed invoice in accordance with Bills of Exchange Act (1882); and
• proof of agency.

You must provide this within ten (10) days from the above date so that I may settle any comestible obligation I might lawfully owe.

Your said failure to provide verification of your claim constitutes your agreement to the following terms: that you are a third party interloper; your claim is fraudulent; elves do not exist; you agree to pay all fee schedules; and that you will no longer pursue this matter any further.

If you sell the alleged liability, and/or appoint my parents to act on your behalf on this matter you will have broken our agreement and you agree to pay the following fee schedule:

• £21000 for dishonouring our agreement;
• £1000 per hour or part of it of authorised representatives time nunc pro tunc;
• £1000 per recorded delivery or any other form of response nunc pro tunc
• £100 per contact by letter or phone payable in advance.

In addition, you and your client SANTA CLAUS have referred to me as Mr Timothy Taylor. I specifically demand that you do not refer to me as Mr or any Title, which is a legal fiction and is not me. Breach of this condition requires you to pay £1000000 for each unauthorised use.

If you have advised your client properly SANTA CLAUS should be aware that it is a common law offence to wilfully attempt to enforce jurisdiction of a man using a legal fiction. Therefore, this amounts to proof of a wilful criminal act.

The only other possibility is that SANTA CLAUS does not exist. If this is the case, then you are attempting to commit fraud on the children of the world.

I therefore demand that this malicious and frivolous activity of exchanging so-called Presents in return for mince pies cease and desist with immediate effect, and that you send me written confirmation of the same along with all of the Presents.

Yours without ill will, frivolity, vexation and malice.

Yours sincerely

By: Sovereign Timothy of the family:Taylor; living breathing human soul.

 No assured value, No liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted. All Rights Reserved.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT 

13^th December 2011

Dear Sirs

Re: Agreement between the Santa Claus Group and Little Timmy

Thank you for your letter of 9^th December. We will take instructions from our client and revert to you with a revised draft.

In the meantime, we are instructed to obtain certain information from you by way of due diligence. We would accordingly be grateful if you would provide answers to the following questions:

1. Please identify the person responsible for health and safety matters at the address to which the Presents are to be delivered (hereinafter referred to as “the Premises”). Your client should note that the designation of such a person does not relieve any person, including without limitation Little Timmy and his parents, guardian, siblings or imaginary friends (if any), from their statutory responsibilities.

2. Please provide a plan of the Premises showing the following clearly marked:

• the location and extent of the designated sleigh landing and take off;
• a point of access and egress large enough to accommodate one man of substantial build together with one sack containing the Presents;
• the internal location at which the Presents are to be delivered;
• fire exits.

3. Please confirm that the landing and take off area is of sufficient extent to accommodate one sleigh (approximately 12′ long) and 6 reindeer, with turning circle. Please also confirm that this area will be free of all obstacles, snow etc at all relevant times.

4. If the point of access and egress is to be a chimney, please confirm the type of fire installed (if any) and provide assurances from your client that it will not be lit between 11pm on 24^th December and 5am on 25^th December. We would draw your attention in this context to clause 7.1 of the Agreement regarding liability for personal injury and damage to beard and costume.

5. Notwithstanding that our client does not accept responsibility or liability for use of the Presents (see clause 7.5 of the Agreement), we are required under the provisions of the Consumer Protection (Seasonal Gifts) Regulations 2003 to ensure that our customers meet any age criteria specified in respect of items to be delivered. To this end, please provide a certified copy of Little Timmy’s birth certificate.

6. Please provide a copy of the following:

• a current fire safety certificate for the Premises;
• your client’s public liability insurance policy;
• if the landing area is to be the roof of the Premises, a surveyor’s report confirming that such roof is capable of bearing the required load (approx. 3.5 tons including reindeer and Presents).

7. If the landing area is not to be the roof of the Premises, but access and egress is to be via a chimney, please confirm that a ladder capable of bearing the required weight (approx. 18 stone together with the weight of the Presents ordered) will be supplied. Please also provide details of how any such ladder will be fixed to the exterior wall of the Premises.

8. Please provide a copy of your most recent risk assessment undertaken for the Premises, and confirm that relevant areas will be checked regularly to ensure that they are free of hazards including but not limited to chemicals, explosive materials, and untidied toys.

9. Please provide details of any relevant medical conditions suffered by your client. It is particularly important that you advise us in advance regarding any known allergy to reindeer, elves, or beards.

10. Assuming that your client is a minor, please provide a form of Parent Company Guarantee (or the equivalent for any legal guardian who is not a parent) under which the relevant person will undertake to provide the relevant mince pies etc in the event of your client’s breach.

We would also remind your client that under the terms of the Agreement he is responsible for the security and safety of the Premises and the delivery, including where appropriate a police presence and the attendance of the St Johns Ambulance service.

You will appreciate that our client’s ability to effect a safe and timely delivery of the Presents depends on satisfactory answers to the foregoing questions, and we therefore look forward to receiving your full response by return of post.

Yours faithfully

9th December 2011

Dear Sirs

Re:      Agreement for the Delivery of Presents

We refer to your letter of 2^nd December, and its enclosed draft greement between the Santa Claus Group and our client Mr Timothy Taylor (referred to in the Agreement as “Little Timmy”).

Having taken instructions from our client, we have the following observations and comments on your draft:

1. In the definition of “the Presents” at clause 1.1, please add the following items: one Lego Ninjago Fire Temple set; one Nerf Vortex Nitron Blaster; one Tech Lightsaber set; two ponies (any breed); one signed photograph of Karen Gillan. A schedule providing further details of these items, and outlets from where they might be purchased, is enclosed.

2. In the same definition, please delete the following items: one Marks and Spencers pyjama set in baby blue; one Beano annual; one orange.

3. At clause 2.1 your requirement that our client “warrants represents and undertakes that he has been good during the course of the year” lacks certainty and arguably imposes an unreasonable standard of behaviour on our client. We suggest that this be replaced by a warranty that our client has “at all material times achieved a reasonable level of behaviour with reference to the standards generally held to be acceptable for children of a similar age, nationality, and socio-economic and ethnic background.”

4. We note that at clause 3.2 you have stated the Price to be “two packets of Duchy Originals mince pies and one bottle of Pol Roger with four glasses.” We assume that this is an error, and request that you reinsert the Price specified in the earlier Heads of Agreement of “two mince pies (Tesco own-brand) and one small glass of Bristol Cream sherry.”

5. Your clause 4.2, which states that “Time shall not be of the essence in relation to this Agreement”, is clearly inappropriate in view of the substantial loss and distress that our client would suffer in the event of late delivery of the Presents. We therefore propose that a schedule of compensatory service credits be appended to the Agreement to apply in the event of your client’s breach.

6. We would draw your attention to the provisions of The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (as amended), and propose that a new clause 6.5 be inserted to provide for the return of the Presents within the statutory cooling off period. A rider to this effect is attached hereto for your consideration.

 7. Your proposed clause 8, which provides for the subcontracting of the Santa Claus Group’s obligations under the Agreement to our client’s parents or guardian, is clearly unacceptable. Our client is entering into the Agreement in reliance on the Santa Claus Group’s representations as to the existence of its founder and chief executive, Mr Claus, and it is of the essence that their obligations are performed by Mr Claus personally.

8. We also find your proposed force majeure provisions (at clause 9) to be inappropriate. The Santa Claus Group has for a number of years promoted and traded on its ability to deliver to customers in all conditions, and we therefore do not accept that your client should be relieved of its obligations in the event of snow or other adverse weather. We therefore propose that this provision be restricted to the following occurrences: volcanic ash clouds; governmental no fly orders; elf flu; and Acts of God.

We also note that our client has expressed some scepticism regarding the ability of the Santa Claus Group to meet its obligations under the Agreement in view of the large number other similar contracts that it enters into at this time of year, all of which must contain similar obligations that must be performed within a short period of time. We would be grateful, therefore, if you could provide a detailed specification of how your client intends to perform its obligations, together with a copy of its business continuity plan and details of any insurances that it holds that may be relevant to the services to be provided.

We look forward to receiving the same, and a revised version of the draft Agreement, at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully