This question comes from Jamie via the submission form.

“Is the Santa Clause legally enforceable? What steps could Tim Allen’s character have taken if he wanted to contest the spirit of Christmas?”

Great question, Jamie. First, I want you to know I love you very much because I re-watched The Santa Clause in preparation of your question. That being said, I only love you to a certain extent because I refused to watch parts 2 or 3. Yes, we all live in a world where there are 3 Santa Clauses.

For those of you unfamiliar with the movie franchise, the premise of the first film is that Scott Calvin (Tim Allen), divorced father and toy executive, discovers Santa on his roof on Christmas Eve. Calvin screams at Kris Kringle, which causes him to fall off the roof and slam on the ground. A grim inciting incident for a children’s movie for sure. As he is rifling inside Santa’s pocket, Calvin finds a card that, on first glance, reads, “If something should happen to me, put on my suit. The reindeer will know what to do.” He puts on the suit and (SPOILER ALERT) transforms into Santa throughout the movie.

I’ll address each part of Jamie’s question in turn. But first – this thought experiment requires us to assume that Santa’s magic comports with the American common law system. So let’s just assume for a minute that it does.

Is the Santa Clause legally enforceable?

The language of the “contract” appears to read “If something should happen to me, put on my suit. The reindeer will know what to do.” But the ultra-super-small fine print reads:

“In putting on this suit and entering the sleigh, the wearer waives any and all rights to any previous identity, real or implied, and fully accepts the duties and responsibilities of Santa Claus in perpetuity until such time that that wearer becomes unable to do so by either accident or design.”

In order to have a binding contract, parties need offer, acceptance, meeting of the minds, and consideration (aka an exchange of value). The parties also have to be of age and in their right minds, also known as having “capacity.” The contract also cannot before something illegal, like the sale of drugs.

All the language on the card could be considered an offer, capable of being accepted. Bernard the elf even says, “In putting on the suit, you accepted the contract.” It sure sounds like Scott Calvin made an acceptance. Even so, if Scott Calvin still wants out of the contract, he can try to do so by going to court.

Before you sue someone, you have to decide in what court you’re going to do it. Sometimes parties decide this in advance by including in their contracts via a “forum selection” clause. They can also decide what law will govern via a “choice of law” clause.

The Santa Clause card is silent as to both. There is no indication whether Illinois or North Pole law would govern or in what court the parties would bring their grievances. 

For ease of reference, let’s assume Scott Calvin would sue in federal court, applying Illinois law. You sue in federal court when there is “diversity of parties,” meaning the parties are from different places  – for instance, a toy executive from Illinois suing a beloved figure from the North Pole. (Note: There’s a lot more to federal diversity jurisdiction than this, but it’s boring and outside the scope of this and anyway doesn’t apply because we’re talking magic so don’t @ me with any Erie doctrine stuff.)

Once he’s decided to sue, Scott Calvin would attack the contract on two levels, both having to do with the incredibly small font size.

1. The Clause is procedurally unconscionable, so a court should refuse to enforce it under Illinois Commercial Code §-302, and

2. There was no meeting of the minds because Calvin didn’t know, and could not have known at the time of acceptance, what the card said.

Illinois courts use the facts and circumstances around a contract to determine whether a contract is unconscionable. One fact courts in Illinois consider is the size of the font and whether a party had the opportunity to see language before entering into the contract. Arguably, the Santa Clause is unconscionable because the tiny font meant Scott Calvin had no way of seeing the language before putting on the suit. He should ask the court not to enforce the contract.

Similarly, because he was unable to read the language, he could argue there was no meeting of the minds. It required a super duper magical magnifying glass at the North Pole for him to read the tiny font. How could he properly accept a contract whose terms he could not read? He could argue the parties failed to come to an agreement, and therefore, there was no contract.

I think that brings us to the second half of Jamie’s question:

What steps could Tim Allen’s character have taken if he wanted to contest the spirit of Christmas?

All that analysis is great, but who would Scott Calvin sue? The Santa whose death he caused had long since disappeared. Plus, the Santa Clause was not between Scott Calvin and the now-dead-former Santa, but was instead between Calvin and the general Santa entity. What entity is that? Who knows. Maybe the Spirit of Christmas itself?

When filing suit, Scott Calvin would need to specify the person he is suing aka the defendant. He would also have to serve the defendant with the lawsuit, and therefore would need to specify where they live so that they may be served. Scott Calvin has been to the North Pole, but I’m not so sure he could articulate the address. Plus, once he or a very costly process server got to The North Pole, who is the person to be served? Santa, who is now Scott himself?

He could serve the lawsuit on Bernard the elf as a representative of The Spirit of Christmas/Santa, Inc. since in the course of his employment, Bernard seems to have an understanding of the logistical inner workings of the place and familiarity with the contract. But Bernard is merely an agent working on behalf of Santa entity, in whatever form it may be.

All that to say: deciding on who to name as the counter-party and then determining who properly acts as representative of that counter-party would be a pretty big obstacle for Scott Calvin.

In the end of the film, Scott Calvin embraces his role and seems happy in his new life as Santa. That would mean the lawsuit is moot. A court will dismiss a claim as “moot” when there has been a change of the parties involved that make the underlying action pointless.

In this case, there has been a change with Scott Calvin. First of all, he seems to no longer exist as a separate individual person – contractually (and magically) he relinquished his previous identity. Secondly, he’s happy! His kid finally respects him. His ex-wife is no longer mad at him. Ex-wife’s new husband is intimidated by Scott in his role. He no longer has to go to work with his terribly rude fatphobic coworkers. Why would he try and get out of that deal?

Finally, his transformation has put him into a tough spot because Scott himself is now the very person/representative of the entity he would be suing. As to whether you can sue yourself, that’s a question for another day.

Short answer – the Clause itself is some bullshit. Font’s too tiny. But even so, Calvin is hosed since there’s really no one to sue. That’s what happens when you mess with magic. Tim Allen should have stayed in bed and kept his eyes closed, then he would never have killed Santa and started this mess in the first place. Let that be a lesson to us all this Christmas! Stay your ass in bed.

I hope that answers the question. Thanks, Jamie!

Got a question? Submit it here. They can be legal what-if questions, or questions about the legality of actions in TV shows or movies you’ve seen. I never ever want to answer your personal legal questions, so don’t send those. Love you, but I don’t do that.

***

Thanks for reading! Subscribe so you don’t miss another piece.