Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: dirtonly  /  dmantx  /  hosehead

That's one thing to support Sides. I like him and enjoy watching him race. However, a contract is a contract. I believe this is the definiton.

an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance

If you read the part about the existence of a contract it makes sense, Jason breached it. Just because he doesn't hear back doesn't mean he can do or not do whatever he wants. Imagine if the business world worked that way. Chaos. I don't think WRG is obiligated to do anything. However, I feel they should, but if they don't, I don't know how Jason will win in court.

A lot of you need to understand contracts and laws. Ethics is one thing, laws are another. WRG should pay Jason, but legally they don't need to. One is ethics, other is law. Jason should fight to have the WRG change their competition rules. That's what he really needs to do.

Not much for responses...wonder what that says.

First let me say that I love Jason Sides, he is very approachable and one of the "good guys" of the sport. He gets the most out of his equipment for the budget he runs on. That being said, everyone is making the WRG out to be the villian in this case ( it is easy to do when you let your emotions come into play). They have the non compete clause for a reason and I know I am in the minority, but I don't look at them as being the bad guy in this case. That is what is wrong with our society today. We think it is ok to break the rules and then ask for forgiveness. I applaud the WRG for standing their ground in this situation, no matter how bad it looks to the fans.

First let me say that I love Jason Sides, he is very approachable and one of the "good guys" of the sport. He gets the most out of his equipment for the budget he runs on. That being said, everyone is making the WRG out to be the villian in this case ( it is easy to do when you let your emotions come into play). They have the non compete clause for a reason and I know I am in the minority, but I don't look at them as being the bad guy in this case. That is what is wrong with our society today. We think it is ok to break the rules and then ask for forgiveness. I applaud the WRG for standing their ground in this situation, no matter how bad it looks to the fans.

Above all else, I want to say that I am reminded once again of the passion that sprint car fans bring to this 'sport'. Regardless of the side of this debate you choose, you seem to do it with passion and commitment...that's commendable. Long live the First Amendment !(That's the one that says in this country everyone is entitled to 'freedom of speech'....so have at it !) Now to the good stuff. I am a lawyer...or at least I played one on a sitcom once...dropped after two seasons! I hate NBC ! Anyway, I have a few questions for y'all to ponder, and on a variety of issues I've read about on here.

1. If the sworn testimony and admissible evidence in this case proves that Sides DID call Mr. Carter and ask for permission to run the Fargo race, and Mr. Carter told him he was busy right then and would call back the next morning...but did not... and that Sides DID try twice more to reach Mr. Carter, without a response...would it surprise you that in virtually every state the law imposes upon all parties to all contracts a 'duty of good faith', and that the jury will be instructed that they are entitled to find that Mr. Carter and the WRG had a legal duty to respond to Sides' request, and if they find that the WRG breached that duty to deal in good faith by not responding to him, the jury can award him his damages.

2. Would you be offended, or find it out of line, if the law in virtually every state is that sanctioning bodies in even voluntary associations are obligated by law to refrain from 'arbitray and capricious' dispensation of 'penalties' in those instances in which they choose to 'punish' a perceived violation of their rules? Is that concept offensive to you? If so, you need to contact your legislator and have them change the law in your state...because that's the law.

3. Would it make any difference to you in this debate if the evidence is that: the #9 team asked for permission to run the Fargo race (with Brad Sweet in the seat, who had not signed the Platinum Agreement, even though the #9 Owner had signed the agreement and was obligated to have its driver sign it too), and the WRG said in substance 'yeah, technically Brad can run the race, but do not run the actual #9 car, and do not take the Red Bull tow rig into the pits....only to have that team put a 4 on the "9" car and, in fact, bring the Red Bull rig into the pits? And what if the WRG chose not to 'penalize' the #9 owner despite what some might view as not

just running without permission, but running in direct contravention of prohibitions from the WRG ?

4. What if it turns out that Cody Darrah in another KKR car did not run the Antioch race (despite a Platinum Agreement that required the team to run ALL WoO shows) because Cody was 'sick'... but it turns out he was not sick; rather maybe the team just didn't want to run 'cause the next race was in their sponsor's back yard and they were saving equipment...and what if the WRG was shown those facts and chose not to punish the driver or team at all? Or, what if after the Sides 'penalty' started causing so much consternation, the WRG decided it should show some nondiscrimination in handing out penalties, and decided to deprive Cody of Rookie of the Year honors...offer the Rookie award to Bill Rose, only to have Bill tell them that it should go to Cody !!! (Dang, it is good to know there are honorable men and women in this sport !!)

5. And what if you are tired of reading all these 'what ifs' and would rather just have your opinion regardless of the facts...one way or the other...in favor of the WRG's 'penalty' imposed on Sides, or against it? And what if you want to speak that opinion with conviction to anyone that will listen?

I know the answer to the last question: this is still America, and I pray to God that you never give up your right to speak your mind...right or wrong...informed or knee jerk...trained in the law or a novice. Speak your mind ! And remember this: if you enter into a contract, you are obligated by law to act toward the other party in good faith. And if you are a sanctioning body, you need to remember that you are not now nor will you ever be entitled to impose penalties in an arbitrary and capricious manner. You can't arbitrarily punish some, but not others. You can't arbitrarily set penalties and arbitrarily refuse to pay contract benefits otherwise due. Jurors have a very keen sense of the distinction between right and wrong, lawful and not. Grown men are entitled to differ. That's why we need juries : to settle differences between parties when the parties can't. The Sixth Amendment gives litigants the right to trial by jury. In this dispute, I strongly suspect that someday a judge is going to ask: "Ladies and gentlemen, have you reached a verdict.........?" And they will have done just that.

If I go into my employer today and ask for next week off, and he tells me he'll get back to me, and never does, does this mean I can just take next week off? Not quite.

Was the employer a jerk for not getting back to me? Yea, but if I take next week off without permission and he lets me go, do I have a leg to stand on?

That's one thing to support Sides. I like him and enjoy watching him race. However, a contract is a contract. I believe this is the definiton.

an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance

If you read the part about the existence of a contract it makes sense, Jason breached it. Just because he doesn't hear back doesn't mean he can do or not do whatever he wants. Imagine if the business world worked that way. Chaos. I don't think WRG is obiligated to do anything. However, I feel they should, but if they don't, I don't know how Jason will win in court.

A lot of you need to understand contracts and laws. Ethics is one thing, laws are another. WRG should pay Jason, but legally they don't need to. One is ethics, other is law. Jason should fight to have the WRG change their competition rules. That's what he really needs to do.

That's one thing to support Sides. I like him and enjoy watching him race. However, a contract is a contract. I believe this is the definiton.

an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance

If you read the part about the existence of a contract it makes sense, Jason breached it. Just because he doesn't hear back doesn't mean he can do or not do whatever he wants. Imagine if the business world worked that way. Chaos. I don't think WRG is obiligated to do anything. However, I feel they should, but if they don't, I don't know how Jason will win in court.

A lot of you need to understand contracts and laws. Ethics is one thing, laws are another. WRG should pay Jason, but legally they don't need to. One is ethics, other is law. Jason should fight to have the WRG change their competition rules. That's what he really needs to do.

I don't believe that anyone is arguing the fact that it is possible that Jason didn't make the right decision by attending the race under the assumption that he had permission. Common sense would tell me that if other teams were able to do it, then why wouldn't he? But that doesn't matter... he assumed. That's an error.

The argument is that he was treated differently than others that are supposed to be his equal (because of the contract.) Other teams ran the show, reportedly with permission and certain restrictions that weren't followed. Why did they get permission and not Sides? If the WRG are so inclined to hand out penalties then why did the other teams not get penalised for not following the restrictions given?

Another argument is that Sides was harshly penalized. Regardless of his status or budget compared to other teams, he was given a penalty detrimental to his career and livelihood. The punishment did not fit the crime. (IF WRG denies this point this penalty should have been clearly defined in the contract.)

Which brings yet another argument... if the contract states that if you do not compete in 100% of the races, you do not receive full points fund... NOT if you compete in another race (with or without other teams from this series) you do not receive full points fund, then why did they feel that point was important enough to mention in the contract for one instance but not the other?

The argument IS the contract. It's not binding and it has certainly not been followed by EITHER party in at least one or more instances, so why should only one of the parties be penalized?

Nobody is perfect and I do not like the idea of demoralizing and/or vilifying either Sides or WRG. But right is right and wrong is wrong and a poorly constructed contract is only a poorly constructed contract when a party starts adding or taking away stipulations to it randomly.