In the matter of Pickles et. al. v. Kringle, this court finds for the defense. Kris Kringle (aka Santa Claus, aka Saint Nicholas, aka Father Christmas) established a verbal contract with Ms. Pickles and similar plaintiffs that established that in order to receive desirable presents, that the plaintiffs must behave in a manner that he characterizes as "Nice" and not in a manner that is "Naughty". Mr. Claus additionally took time audit his list on two separate occasions in the calendar year, at great personal cost given the sheer scale of evaluating every single human child of the 7.5 billion members of the human race. While the terms may be overly broad [Defenses' evidence A: Document titled "Santa Claus is coming to town"], Mr. Claus further stipulates that the the criteria of determination for the nice and naughty list are his sole determination, though it is generally assumed that the plain language meaning applies. Certain "naughty" behaviors are described, as the contract explains that children must take caution to avoid behaviors such as "crying" or "pouting" and that while the child has surrendered a good amount of privacy rights to Mr. Kringle, he does have ample documentation to know if someone has been "bad or good" and implores one to be good. We can therefor find that Santa has more than sufficiently meant the burden of proof to make claim that the plaintiffs were in fact "Naughty" and not "Nice." As such, the plaintiffs violated the terms of the verbal agreement with Mr. Kringle, thus the desirable gift(s) were rightfully denied from them.
While there has been considerable scrutiny over the contract applying to children who were unable to sign such a document, the burden to be Good and Nice for a year at length is not difficult for the children to meet, and while many recipients of favorable Christmas gifts may have underperformed their quoted estimates to Santa, Santa still was quite lenient and managed to produce the desired gift. Mr. Claus' stated gain in this is that children the world over learn how to treat others with respectful and dignified behavior. Often in our lives, those who do good things are rarely celebrated or discussed. Mr. Kringle is a rare exception to this, who positively rewards behavior that while difficult is what one should aspire to do.
We next move on to equity of the gift of coal left for the plaintiffs and whether it is equitable. We must first examine whether the plaintiffs, had they received their desired gifts, would have equal value in those gifts. Of a sampling, we look at the list of Johnny, Susie, and Nelly, who want a pair of skates, a dolly, and a storybook respectively. These are reflective of different goals and pursuits and entertainment of the children. Perhaps Johnny has goals of playing for the NHL or winning a winter Olympics gold medal, while Susie wishes to be a mother and is practicing her maternal skills. Nelly, who openly states that she thinks "dollies are follies" has may have academic pursuits or desires to have a career as a writer. Obviously the gifts are all of different values on the open market if bought new but they are equal in that that they all three bring their recipient happiness, which, we cite Mastercard ex parte, is truly priceless. One can no more put a price on the thrill of a child finding the perfect gift under the Christmas Tree on Christmas Morning than one can count all the stars in the sky... in fact, the emotion is so pure and concentrated, those who are noted to be in exceptionally high spirits are often figuratively likened to children in this magical of moments.
We now look at the gift of coal, a commodity traded on the market for energy and having a high value both due to the difficulty in procuring it and the many uses coal has in both the warmth it can bring and the price it can fetch in resale to help offset economic hardship. The plaintiffs do not argue that the coal was given unequally beyond that any amount, in the slightest, is too much. Through this lack of argument, not only are they showing that they would value the happiness of a new toy of their desire over the economic value of coal, but they fail to acknowledge that even while they failed to satisfy their end of the contract, Mr. Kringle did still give them something of some value when he was not obligated to follow up with his part of the bargain at all. Even though, through their own fault, they had a less than desired outcome from the contract, Mr. Kringle still sought to leave them with a gift that could be put to good use. Rather than offering the coal to help keep their families warm or selling the coal to bring in some income to help their families fed and clothed during the harsh winter season (for those south of the equator, they could at least offer it come winter time in six months), which would in this court's opinion be true acts of goodness that Mr. Kringle ought consider in his next audit of lists, they instead chose to bring legal proceedings against a man who has given so much for a payment of so little.
Christmas is a time where we are all reminded that a little kindness is an investment that will always have a large payout. The court of law enjoins people to do what they must by the laws we have written. But this court is humbled by the knowledge that no law can be created to enjoin people to do what they need not do, but still want to. One does not need a law saying to do good to others, but we have many saying do not do bad to others. This court was not set up to tell the generous to give more than they have, but to bring justice to those wronged by the greed of others. Mr. Kringle is perhaps the most generous person in the world. For a small deposit of milk and cookies (and carrots for the reindeer) and a promise to do the good things you should already be doing, he gives so much more. For those who fail to meet their obligations, he still gives something that can be useful for those who desire to change for the better. This court finds in favor of the defense.
It is so ordered.
