Donner, Blitzen and Rudolf LLP
The Santa Claus Building
St Nicholas Street
The North Pole
19th December 2011
Re: Agreement between the Santa Claus Group and Little Timmy
We were most concerned to receive your letter of 16th 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 24th December and 5am on 25th 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.
for and on behalf of