COTA: It's real simple

[CephasGT]

The thought crossed my mind, but I try not to assign ulterior motives to either side, in the interest of fairness.

[BDBGoalie]

With him being a rider who gave 20+ years of his life for MotoGP, I'd imagine he was just eager to be there for the event. Living racing like that never dies, and this was a project he worked on for a long time.

I do agree that I could also have been a politically motivated move. However, IMO COTA was shitty in their sidestepping his efforts...

I also agree that as a business, if I am being sued by someone, I would not want them at my venue, and especially not at the very event that the lawsuit is about. I'm sure they could have taken a gentler route in evicting him, but that was not required.

It could also be a move by COTA where they saw his name in the roster, and just wanted to spit on him, and I definitely wouldn't put that past them.

Overall, I agree with Brian. US roadracing is very fragile and it does not need any bad press. Sadly, the rednecks and their bumper cars rule here.

If you don't like how it sorted out, don't give them money. If you have to bitch about it publicly, do it in a manner that reflects no negativity on the sport (Which isn't really possible).

[redkow97]

Let's take a step back and get a few things straight before continuing this discussion:

Kevin Schwantz's personality is completely irrelevant when it comes to the merits of his legal claims. He can be the biggest a-hole in the world, and still be right, and he can be Mother Theresa and not have a leg to stand on. If he's likeable, that just means that the public is more likely to feel sorry for him without knowing all the facts, or irrespective of those facts.

As far as I have read, Schwantz has sued COTA claiming "tortious interference with contract," and "fraud."

As one might guess, in order for there to be interference with a contract, a contract has to exist. I haven't read any hard evidence that says any contract between COTA and Kevin's company ever existed. I've more gotten the impression that they were negotiating and possibly talking about forming a contract.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that fraud claims must be pleaded with particularity. The idea is, I can't just accuse a party of fraud and leave them guessing as to what I think they did to defraud me. There may or may not be a real claim there. Without more facts, we simply can't say.

But this is how I'd speculate things went down, give or take a few details:

KS wants to bring MotoGP to Texas. Awesome. So he calls up Dorna and says, "hey, if I can work something out with the COTA, would you guys consider a third American GP in 2013?" Dorna says, "we're listening," but commits to nothing.

KS approaches COTA with something like, "hey, you're building a track, and I've got interest from Dorna that MotoGP might come here if you build it right." COTA listens, and builds the track to accommodate bikes, but commits to nothing.

Fast-forward 3 or 4 years, and now it's all real. The track is complete, Dorna would like to schedule a round at COTA, and KS is acting as middle-man to make that happen. He'd like for that to mean he's the promoter.

...But negotiations break down, and KS wants something that either COTA or Dorna isn't willing to give him. They realize, "hey, this Schwantz guy is the one causing conflict here. Let's just do the deal without him, save us both some money, and eliminate the arguing." Deal done.

The question is where/if fraud occurred in that (admittedly completely speculative and very vague) timeline; and if Schwantz ever actually had a contract with COTA or Dorna.

If a contract existed, then Schwantz may have something. If not, I don't see this getting very far in its current form. An agreement to agree is not a contract... A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and a promise in exchange for 'valuable consideration.' That means money must have changed hands, or one party must have given up some legal right (like their ability to negotiate with others, etc.)

Again, as of now, I haven't read anything to indicate that such steps were taken, which makes everything up to that point "mere negotiations." If we're not getting all the facts, there may be a different outcome.

Where I think KS has a lot more traction is in a claim for quasi-contract. There, the court basically creates a contract to prevent unjust enrichment based on the plaintiff's detriment.

KS certainly did a lot of leg-work establishing the relationship between Dorna and COTA, as well as his own expertise in making the track safe. He does deserve compensation for those efforts, even if no contract to promote the race actually existed. But he's not going to stop the race, nor is he going to win the promotional rights...

In summary, COTA doesn't appear to have done anything illegal. Unethical? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But it's a court of law, not a court of fair.

[ama146]

i am going to cota motogp this year and could care less about all this drama honestly. all i want to do is watch the race

[shittygsxr]

Let's take a step back and get a few things straight before continuing this discussion:

Kevin Schwantz's personality is completely irrelevant when it comes to the merits of his legal claims. He can be the biggest a-hole in the world, and still be right, and he can be Mother Theresa and not have a leg to stand on. If he's likeable, that just means that the public is more likely to feel sorry for him without knowing all the facts, or irrespective of those facts.

As far as I have read, Schwantz has sued COTA claiming "tortious interference with contract," and "fraud."

As one might guess, in order for there to be interference with a contract, a contract has to exist. I haven't read any hard evidence that says any contract between COTA and Kevin's company ever existed. I've more gotten the impression that they were negotiating and possibly talking about forming a contract.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that fraud claims must be pleaded with particularity. The idea is, I can't just accuse a party of fraud and leave them guessing as to what I think they did to defraud me. There may or may not be a real claim there. Without more facts, we simply can't say.

But this is how I'd speculate things went down, give or take a few details:

KS wants to bring MotoGP to Texas. Awesome. So he calls up Dorna and says, "hey, if I can work something out with the COTA, would you guys consider a third American GP in 2013?" Dorna says, "we're listening," but commits to nothing.

KS approaches COTA with something like, "hey, you're building a track, and I've got interest from Dorna that MotoGP might come here if you build it right." COTA listens, and builds the track to accommodate bikes, but commits to nothing.

Fast-forward 3 or 4 years, and now it's all real. The track is complete, Dorna would like to schedule a round at COTA, and KS is acting as middle-man to make that happen. He'd like for that to mean he's the promoter.

...But negotiations break down, and KS wants something that either COTA or Dorna isn't willing to give him. They realize, "hey, this Schwantz guy is the one causing conflict here. Let's just do the deal without him, save us both some money, and eliminate the arguing." Deal done.

The question is where/if fraud occurred in that (admittedly completely speculative and very vague) timeline; and if Schwantz ever actually had a contract with COTA or Dorna.

If a contract existed, then Schwantz may have something. If not, I don't see this getting very far in its current form. An agreement to agree is not a contract... A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and a promise in exchange for 'valuable consideration.' That means money must have changed hands, or one party must have given up some legal right (like their ability to negotiate with others, etc.)

Again, as of now, I haven't read anything to indicate that such steps were taken, which makes everything up to that point "mere negotiations." If we're not getting all the facts, there may be a different outcome.

Where I think KS has a lot more traction is in a claim for quasi-contract. There, the court basically creates a contract to prevent unjust enrichment based on the plaintiff's detriment.

KS certainly did a lot of leg-work establishing the relationship between Dorna and COTA, as well as his own expertise in making the track safe. He does deserve compensation for those efforts, even if no contract to promote the race actually existed. But he's not going to stop the race, nor is he going to win the promotional rights...

In summary, COTA doesn't appear to have done anything illegal. Unethical? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But it's a court of law, not a court of fair.

So in your hypothetical, I don't know shit about what happened, scenario Kevin doesn't have a case?

[max power]

There you guys go talking about motorcycles on a gun board again.