Home | Literature Index | Movies & Broadway Index | Television Index | Music Index | Miscellaneous Index | Submit Your Own
Mr. Cheatem,
Thank you for your prompt reply to my letter of 8 January
regarding the dispute between Administrator Sauron and
Mr. Baggins. We have reviewed your claims and, I am
sorry to say, find them wanting.
The cases you cite refer to matters involving lost property.
The instant case is distinguished due to the fact that
my client did not in fact lose the property in question
but, rather, was a victim of a robbery. To whit, the
ring in question was taken from him by the application
if deadly force. We are well aware that some have suggested
that said robber did then proceed to lose my client's
ring. But, if you insist upon denying my client's right
to the return of his property, we intend to argue in
court that, insofar as Isildur's possession of the ring
was unlawful, no later possessor can have a greater
rights of title in it than he did.
As regards your claim that the Statute of Limitations
is a bar to suit, we intend to argue that Mr. Baggins
should not be able to use the law as a shield to hide
his wrongful possession of my client's property and
that the Statute should not be considered to have tolled
until my client became aware of the identity of the
party in possession.
Please note that the very cases you cite in support
of your position can in fact be construed as supporting
my client: In each of those cases, the finder of the
lost property at issue turned said property over to
higher authority in hopes that the true owner would
be found. The finder only gained rightful title when
such true owner was not found within a reasonable time.
Your client made no such effort to facilitate the return
of my client's property to him. Contrarywise, your client
actively and willfully hid the ring from even his closest
acquaintances, so anxious was he to prevent the rightful
owner from discovering its whereabouts. We will therefore
argue that it would be unjust enrichment for him to
be allowed to retain my client's property under those
precedents. See, eg., Attorney General of Canada v.
RJR Tobacco Holding (2nd Cir 2001) (profit from crime
is unjust enrichment)
I should add, by the way, that my client was only able
to find your client, and hereby seek to assert his rightful
title to the ring in question, after considerable time
and expense. If we are in fact forced to litigate this
matter, we will of course request compensatory damages
for the full amount of said expenses. My client is willing
to waive any such claim if your client will agree to
simply return the ring forthwith.
My client is quite elderly and, as was implied in my
previous letter, is in a state of especially poor health.
He has become quite fixated on regaining possession
of his ring. He is, in fact, convinced that he will
not recover from his current infirmity without it. Any
effort on your part to convince your client to be reasonable
and allow an old man to enter his twilight years with
the small peace of mind the return of this bauble would
grant to him would be sincerely appreciated. I look
forward to your positive response.
Sincerely,
Grima Crebain
Attorney at Law