[somnilaw]

To enhance our legal services we present to you a law suit threat letter written by the lawyers of our legal department Somnilaw, which is seated in Burbank, California U.S.A. For obvious reasons of privacy we omitted the names of the accused party. After all, we don't want to make you feel uncomfortable.

Law Suit Threat

[somnilaw]

TSIF 971212SLAW1050

To: [accused parties] We, lawyers associated with SOMNILAW, the legal department of The Somniloquy Institute, have been presented with the problems concerning the events that occurred last week around The Somniloquy Institute's exhibition of its Waiting Room (a semi-permanent installation work of art), that involved its intentional exclusion, closure, disappearance from sight and malicious removal and destruction of both the Waiting Room sign and the No Smoking sign. After careful deliberation we concluded that the seriousness of the events that took place called for legal action and we decided to present our case to the District Attorney E.F.L. Lipschitz who is currently seated in the State Court of California. In light of the nature of the offenses against The Somniloquy Institute that took place on the property and in an estate used by and/or belonging to [institute], [location], it is possible to initiate a law suit against this organisation and the individuals either present in the building or employed by this organisation according to the Statutory Law of Torts and the Foundations of Tortious Liability*1. Our aim is to provide The Somniloquy Institute with a compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the conduct of the accused party and individuals who invaded the plaintiff's interest. Our law suit will be based on the following accusations: [institute] (max. compensation) Negligence : damage caused by the acts of its employees or independent contractors. 1] The employer is liable where he carelessly appoints an incompetent employee*2:     US$ 1.234.000 2] Actionable and personal negligence of the employer to provide precautions in a contract or agreement*3:     US$ 164.000 3] Failure to inspect after a job has been completed*4:     US$ 890.000 4] Collateral negligence of not taking precautions that lead to the plaintiff's invasion of interests*5:     US$ 98.000 [employee 1] Gross negligence: damage caused by his acts and subsequently those of his independent contractors and guests of the premises 1] Providing ambiguous information to guests of the premises causing damage to the property of the plaintiff (false advertising)*6:     US$ 748.000 2] Consciously neglecting to supervise environmental changes executed in and near the location of the property of the plaintiff causing damage*7:     US$ 1.460.000 Liability- 4] Loss of earnings because of unforeseen closure of plaintiff's interest*8:     US$ 500.000 5] Loss of earnings because of unforeseen administrative work by the plaintiff*9:     US$ 364 6] Loss of earnings because of the grief suffered by the plaintiff after the damage to its property, resulting in defamation and loss of reputation*10:     US$ 4.877.000 [guest] 1] Maliciously damaging the plaintiff's property and interest without authorization:     US$ 870.000 2] Slander related: Orally provoking the plaintiff to commit an injurious crime against defendant*11:     US$ 66.000 3] Deceit: Making several ambiguous statements in order to damage the plaintiff's position as an artist exhibiting his work*12:     US$ 439.000 [employee 2] Negligence- 1] Witnessing the damage of the plaintiff's property and interest without trying to prevent it*13:     US$ 1.880.000 2] Witnessing the damage of the plaintiff's property and interest without either notifying the plaintiff nor the proper authorities or*14:     US$ 450.000 [employee 3] 1] Unauthorized removal of plaintiff's property:     US$ 92 Legal Costs The plaintiff's attorney fees in American tort litigation are fixed on the usual contingency basis which in our case is 32,8% of the punitive damages. However, clause nr. 2A139 in the California Community Law (1958) demands a percentage of 14,3% of the punitive damages to cover the administrative costs of the Court:     US$ 1.941.719,20 Maximum amount of compensation suggested to D.A.:     US$ 15.520.175,20 (fifteen million five hundred and twentythousand one hundred and seventy-five US Dollars and twenty cents) Our advice to The Somniloquy Institute to rest its case after receiving a settlement sum of 1/3 of the maximum compensation demanded in this law suit has been rejected. In conclusion, we can only urge you to consult your lawyers. See you in court.

Footnotes

[somnilaw]

TSIF 971212SLAW1050

*1 See Glanville Williams (7 Camb LJ III, 1939) The various interests protected by the law of torts, can be summed up as: I] intentional invasion of personal and proprietary interests; II] interests in economic relations, business and trading interests; III] interests in intellectual property; IV] negligent interference with personal, proprietary and economic interests; V] protection of personal and proprietary interests according to common law (for instance from nuisance, see Rylands v Fletcher 1868); VI] protection of reputation; VII] protection from malicious abuse of the administrative and judicial process; and VIII] peripheral interests. *2 Case file Hughes v Percival (1883) 8 App Case 443, HL *3 Case file Robinson v Beaconsfield Rural Council (1911) 2 Ch 188 *4 Employers' Liability Act 1957 (31 statutes 188) *5 Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951) 2KB 343 at 365 (per DENNING LJ); (1951) 1 All ER 574, CA Salsbury v Woodland (1970) 1 QB 324 at 349 (per SACHS LJ) *6 If a bailee is aware that the goods on his premises are not his property, i.e. a 'conscious bailee', he is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to ascertain that they were not his own before their destruction; AVX LTD v EGM Solders LTD (1982) Times, 7 July *7 Professional duty and breach; Case file Nauman v NYC Council (1989) AC 218 at 244 *8 Also: Economic loss arising from physical damage to property, see Housecroft v Burnett (1986) 1 All ER 332, CA (award of $240.000 for loss of earnings capacity to intelligent 31-year-old artist) *9 Jeansch v Coffey (1984) 54 ALR 417 *10 Non-pecuniary damage: emotional distress can now be awarded with Sleepers Act (Common Law 1962, 24 statutes 113). Grief resulting in long term depression ('temporary disability') is statutory *11 Disguised Threat; Plaintiff mislead; Richardson v Sylvester, supra *12 Deceit can also be statutory if can be proven that the defendant consciously posed as an authority figure with subsequent freedom of actions, see O'Brien v Lugosi Benefit Building Society (1941) All ER 205, at 211, HL *13 Allowing damage to property is a crime in both Statutory and Common Law; see Common Law Procedure Act 1852 *14 An employee is by law indebted to his employer to report any damage to the employers interests.

| services |   | home |

The Somniloquy Institute P.O. Box 25321 3001 HH Rotterdam - The Netherlands cuckoo@xs4all.nl