Karloff The Lawyers

This is an Authonomy flash submission on the theme of Frankenstein’s wish. Be warned: if the title weren’t clue enough, there are some terrible puns in this.

Messrs Milk, Leach and Bleedham Solicitors,
Without prejudice
12/02/17_
Sir,
We write, pursuant to the instructions of our client, Professor Victor Algernon Frankenstein, ‘the doctor’, to ask that your client, colloquially known as ‘the Frankenstein Monster’ and hereinafter referred to as ‘the creature’ cease and desist all activity under the Frankenstein name with immediate effect. 
As established in R v Rumplestiltskin, The Doctor’s name remains his intellectual property and any failure of the part of your client to respect this right will be looked upon as severe breach of his rights warranting an action for punitive damages.
We look forward to your response by return of post,
Yours,
Bernard Leach, LLB (Cantab)
****

Stone, Wall and Filibuster Solicitors,
14/02/17_
Sir,
We have studied your letter with interest. As you will be aware from Somersby v Doe, for the courts to find a violation of intellectual property, it would first need to be established either that the defendant has made a material gain as a direct result of the exploitation of said intellectual property or, conversely, that the plaintiff has suffered a loss. 
Before this matter is given an airing in the courts, we would ask that you consult with The Doctor to clarify whether or not either eventually has obtained in this case. It is our client’s position that they have not.
Yours,
Edward Wall, LLB, MA
***

Messrs Milk, Leach and Bleedham Solicitors
15/02/17_
Sir,
You will be aware that, before recent events, The Doctor was a respected medical researcher. Since the activities of your client have come to wider public attention, his reputation is in tatters. The public has proven unable to distinguish the creature’s flagrant disrespect for wildflowers and tendency to anger baying mobs from the nobler works of its creator. As a result, Dr Frankenstein has lost a number of visiting speakerships and finds his standing in the scientific community severely diminished.
He therefore asks the the Creature renounce all rights to the soubriquets The Frankenstein Monster, Frankenstein’s Monster or Frankenstein.
We await your response,
Yours,
Bernard Leach, LLB (Cantab)
****

Stone, Wall and Filibuster Solicitors,
20/02/17_
Sir,
We have consulted with our client and it is his contention that it is thanks only to his activities that the Frankenstein name carries any traction. Absent said activities, he argues, The Doctor could have expected a life of Mitteleuropean obscurity. The Creature holds that the Frankenstein brand owes its prominence to his endeavours and that, as per Badgeman v Oswald, the intellectual property rights could, if the Court were asked to apply its mind to the issue, be given over to him.
Our client wishes is to be known that he is a reasonable man would like it to be known that he is content to share rights to the Frankenstein name with The Doctor, providing he is allowed to retain the copyright to the ornamental neck bolt arrangement which he has done much to publicise.
We await, as always, your response.
Yours,
Edward Wall, LLB, MA
***

Messrs Milk, Leach and Bleedham Solicitors,
21/02/17_
Sir,
Our client’s response is as you might expect. If your client does not relinquish, immediately, all rights to the name, he intends to instruct a pack of angry villagers with pitchforks to defend his intellectual property.
We await etc,
Bernard Leach, LLB (Cantab)
***
Stone, Wall and Filibuster Solicitors,
22/02/17_
Sir,
Our client informs us that unless the Doctor abandons his Ill-advised legal action, he will countersue for unlawful resurrection, citing Lazarus v Christ.
Return of post?
Yours,
Edward Wall, LLB, MA
***

Messrs Milk, Leach and Bleedham Solicitors,
26/02/17_
Sir, 
Mr Milk, our senior partner has considered the comments in your previous letter. His view is that, given that the plaintiff in Christ v Lazarus was a single individual whereas your client is a composite of body parts originally belonging to several different people, the cases can be readily distinguished. Of the many people whose remains have been incorporated into The Creature, it would be difficult to establish that not one had given express or implied consent to the resurrection process.
We suggest you sit down with your client and ask him not to be so silly.
Yours,
Bernie Leach, LLB (Cantab)
***
Stone, Wall and Filibuster Solicitors,
27/02/17_
Sir,
The Creature says he’ll drop all claim to the Frankenstein name if The Doctor knocks him up a bride.
Yours,
Ed
***
Messrs Milk, Leach and Bleedham Solicitors,
01/03/17_
Done.
Any special requests?
Yours,
Bernie
***
Stone, Wall and Filibuster Solicitors,
0//03/17_
Sir,
He says she doesn’t have to be a looker as long as she doesn’t talk too much,
Yours,
Ed

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Karloff The Lawyers

  1. Hilarious. My favorite post all month.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s