Link to the 82 page lawsuit on behalf of the Indy fans

David · 22 Jun 2005, 03:32 (Ref:1336717)

avsfan733 · 22 Jun 2005, 04:14 (Ref:1336742)

some one was typing really fast. This isn't going to get anywhere its gonna end up being force majuere...personally i don't want my money back i want and apology from Michelin as i stated in the uberthread.

I especially like how they just up and sued everyone possibly able to afford to pay out money

alfasud · 22 Jun 2005, 04:23 (Ref:1336744)

The Class Action Complaint itself is here:

http://www.kgrlaw.com/news/f1.pdf

Interesting reading. I guess that like most places, the application of the law is often determined by precedent. What happens if someone like myself for example, purchases a ticket to an IRL or NASCAR race in the USA plus airline tickets and accomadation, but the race does not take place due to rain (or some other reason). Possibly the event is held several days later, but that's no good for me, I've already caught my flight home again.

Do I get a refund of ticket price?
What about the cost of flights, meals etc?

josvandeperre · 22 Jun 2005, 05:51 (Ref:1336777)

Its quite a strange read really - whilst the format must be prescribed and the laying out of what happened is interesting what is weird is that the primary allegation appears to be that all the parties conspired to effect the fraud - if there's one thing we all know about F1 its that there's no way to get everyone to agree about anything....

Dixie Flatline · 22 Jun 2005, 06:35 (Ref:1336799)

Definitely not an expert on American law, but I know that the contract I enter into with the Australian Grand Prix Corporation as promoter of the Australian Grand Prix when I buy my ticket basically allows the AGPC to do what it likes with the Grand Prix. If only six cars show up to the race, I've seen a Grand Prix and they've fulfilled their contractual obligations.

I'll be interested to see how this turns out.

AndyF · 22 Jun 2005, 07:08 (Ref:1336815)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dixie Flatline

Definitely not an expert on American law, but I know that the contract I enter into with the Australian Grand Prix Corporation as promoter of the Australian Grand Prix when I buy my ticket basically allows the AGPC to do what it likes with the Grand Prix. If only six cars show up to the race, I've seen a Grand Prix and they've fulfilled their contractual obligations.

I'll be interested to see how this turns out.

Indeed. I didn't see anyone complain like this with the demise of Arrows-technically they entered into meetings without really competing, and the fans didn't complain about that! It is unsurprising that there would be a lawsuit at some stage, but if it were successful, what would it mean for the future... a first corner accident eliminates all bar four cars. Would people then want to sue the team or driver involved for depriving them of a race. I am not trying to knock those fans campaigning for compensation, just commenting on the imapct on the future of F1!

ClearHooter · 22 Jun 2005, 07:24 (Ref:1336821)

That's a lot of reading. I was left thinking. "You can't have your cake and eat it too." If the FIA was so hot not to change the rules; why did they let the race start with fewer cars than is required by the rules? If the FIA considers this a "race" how can they legally penalize the teams that pulled off after the pace lap? They "participated" but retired because of problems. This is of course blind justice talking here. By the FIA and track official's own words this was a "Farce." In all honesty no points should be awarded. But that's not what is at issue. It is obvious there was a conspiracy in the ranks otherwise why would all of the Michelin cars leave the track at the same time? Coincidence? I think not. Are they sueing the right people for conspiracy? Maybe not. That seems to be more between the teams and Michelin. But since the FIA did let the "race" run against the rules; they tried to profit from the "farce" and did not give any refunds to ticket holders that made the request or demand. That may constitute conspiracy to commit fraud between the track and FIA. The suit seeks to deny any profit from the sham they tried to pull off. Its ironic but had they made the gesture of refunds there may not have been a suit and they wouldn't be asking for ticket compensation and expenses. I think and hope they'll get both. Boy I'd like to see these proceedings on "Court TV."

As far as NASCAR being liable for rain postponments? Don't count on that ever happening. Its a given that if three people spit on the track they can call the whole thing off. And tuff luck. Granted they will try and run it the next day....unless three more people spit on the track. Everyone may not get to see it run but you should have thought of that and took off a couple more days. I've always said what goods a car that you can't get wet?

rameire · 22 Jun 2005, 07:35 (Ref:1336828)

Im sorry but I hope this lawsuit fails.
No wonder the world is the way it is with muppets suing for every little thing.

ClearHooter · 22 Jun 2005, 07:40 (Ref:1336830)

If I'd of come from NC to Indy with my wife, the overall cost to do it on the cheap would have been over $700.00. I don't know about you but for me that would have been 10 days pay. What went on there was not a race. It was a bad joke. I'd want my money back.

That's one reason I prefer going to SCCA races and don't go to NASCAR. I know the SCCA events are going to go on come Hell or high water. And I've seen high water at them.

CamF1 · 22 Jun 2005, 07:46 (Ref:1336831)

I guess if one feels 'victimized' then it's justified.

BootsOntheSide · 22 Jun 2005, 08:07 (Ref:1336851)

Is there any precedent for a mass lawsuit retrieving the costs of attending a cancelled event, let alone one which took place in a butchered form? Realistically I think race ticket price is all they can expect to get back, and the way events are going, it could be that they will get that without the lawsuit.

Clear Hooter raises an interesting point about what constitutes starting a race - I'm sure Michelin felt that they were covering their backs by forming up on the grid and taking the start, while the FIA felt that, as long as the cars made it to the dummy grid, they had their 12-car minimmum for it to legally be classified as a 'racde'. End result -less chance of lawsuits holdign against either the FIA or Michelin.

Kicking-back · 22 Jun 2005, 08:37 (Ref:1336876)

This lawsuit deserves to fail - there is simply no case to answer.

Silk Cut Jaguar · 22 Jun 2005, 13:09 (Ref:1337163)

They paid to watch a sanctioned World Championship event and that's exactly what they got. I sympathise but I can't see this lawsuit having legs, although I'm no legal expert.

ClearHooter · 22 Jun 2005, 14:00 (Ref:1337218)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silk Cut Jaguar

They paid to watch a sanctioned World Championship event and that's exactly what they got. I sympathise but I can't see this lawsuit having legs, although I'm no legal expert.

If that's the case the FIA has no grounds to penalize Michelin.

I think the case will fly. The cars were pulled off the course before the first "race" lap. Therefore the "race" only started with six participants and did not constitute a full starting grid. Breach of contract by ALL. And it was only a world championship race because the FIA wrongly let it flounder on and offered bougus points afterward. Don't forget this ain't going to an international court of law.

AndyF · 22 Jun 2005, 14:31 (Ref:1337248)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClearHooter

If that's the case the FIA has no grounds to penalize Michelin.

I think the case will fly. The cars were pulled off the course before the first "race" lap. Therefore the "race" only started with six participants and did not constitute a full starting grid. Breach of contract by ALL. And it was only a world championship race because the FIA wrongly let it flounder on and offered bougus points afterward. Don't forget this ain't going to an international court of law.

So does this mean that if a car retires from a Grand Prix then it breaches a contract? Surely teams don't have to race on an individual basis if they choose not to! You could also argue the decision was made with safety in mind - does that mean if a car is on fire but still running, it can't stop?

ascarmarshal · 22 Jun 2005, 14:47 (Ref:1337265)

I noticed in the lawsuit that it states that the six car field were given a green flag. There was no green flag or light to give the start

Sheila M · 22 Jun 2005, 14:53 (Ref:1337273)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ascarmarshal

I noticed in the lawsuit that it states that the six car field were given a green flag. There was no green flag or light to give the start

They were given a green flag but not at the start of the race.

ascarmarshal · 22 Jun 2005, 15:03 (Ref:1337287)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheila M

They were given a green flag but not at the start of the race.

Only at the marshals posts to show the drivers where the flag points are.

The green flag statement comes under the heading Factual Background. Clearly, that statement is not factual. That should be a case for the defense to get the case thrown out.

Sheila M · 22 Jun 2005, 15:11 (Ref:1337293)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ascarmarshal

Only at the marshals posts to show the drivers where the flag points are.

The green flag statement comes under the heading Factual Background. Clearly, that statement is not factual. That should be a case for the defense to get the case thrown out.

It would be a pity that the case was thrown out because a lawyer couldn't get his facts right.

ascarmarshal · 22 Jun 2005, 15:12 (Ref:1337294)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheila M

It would be a pity that the case was thrown out because a lawyer couldn't get his facts right.

Whats new about that

ClearHooter · 22 Jun 2005, 15:21 (Ref:1337309)

Don't be absurd. The point is these cars did not start and therefore breached a contract. Had they have turned a few laps and retired then there would have been less problem. If they commit to a race they should put forth an effort to do so and this does not mean the negotiations prior to the race.

BootsOntheSide · 22 Jun 2005, 15:47 (Ref:1337340)

The formation lap does count as a racing lap in many ways - when they need a second one due to an aborted start, it is deducted from the race distance. Therefore, offically 20 cars started the race - which is crucial, because the FIA's own races say that a grand prix needs at elast 20 cars. Therefore, technically the MIchelin cars raced, and as such can't be fined for not racing. Only in authority can you ahve your cake and eat it.

Kempi · 22 Jun 2005, 16:33 (Ref:1337386)

Without having read it: Preparing an 82 page law suit in 3 days is bound to fail, imho. Writing that many pages alone takes a damn long time, let alone do research on precedence and all that stuff. I cannot believe this is a thoroughly thought through piece of work.

I also wonder why they moved so fast? Be the first one out of the blocks? Win the whole shot? Normally, lawsuits aren't one by being the quickest but by being the most prepared...

Sheila M · 22 Jun 2005, 16:37 (Ref:1337390)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kempi

Without having read it: Preparing an 82 page law suit in 3 days is bound to fail, imho. Writing that many pages alone takes a damn long time, let alone do research on precedence and all that stuff. I cannot believe this is a thoroughly thought through piece of work.

I also wonder why they moved so fast? Be the first one out of the blocks? Win the whole shot? Normally, lawsuits aren't one by being the quickest but by being the most prepared...

Actually, the law suit itself isn't 82 pages long - they have included the exhibits in there as well. And, presumably, as in England, American lawyers wouldn't have that much work to do to complete the document - most legal documents are contained in the firm's databases and it's just a question of "filling in the blanks" and tweaking what wording they have available.

Fireblade · 22 Jun 2005, 16:45 (Ref:1337397)

Well, Kroger, Gardis and Regas-LLP sound like a firm of Ambulance Chasers to me.
I am not the biggest fan of lawyers at the best of times and trust that their action bombs big style.

Jumping on a band wagon springs to mind.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Indy - V8 Fans - Accommodation Available	The Tool Man	Australasian Touring Cars.	6	4 Sep 2002 11:56
Motorsport Link Page	Kelvin	Cool Sites	1	11 May 2001 17:39