The Sauber Van der Garde Dilemna

[truefan72]

From the story CNR linked to: "Giedo van der Garde won a court decision to force F1 team Sauber to reinstate him after they dumped him..."

This all seems very strange to me. For a court to order specific performance as a remedy in a dispute such as this sounds highly unusual. You might expect an order for specific performance in a case over transfer of ownership of some unique item, but in an employment dispute?
Of course it's possible that the media is simply doing its usual crap job of reporting the actual facts when it comes to the law or science.

OK lets get some facts clear
He won the court case in the Swiss and now the Australian courts because he had a very valid contract that specifically stated that he was to be given a race seat in 2015.
Sauber can argue all they want but this was clearly a misstep on their part and rightfully should pay the consequences for their shortsighted actions.
If they were smart about it, they would pay up the required amount to release him from this contract. Something they should have done in the first place before signing the other 2.
But they callously didn't and thought he was just going to go away without a fight because typically drivers are told not to fight these matters if they want an opportunity to drive again in the F1 cabal.
GVdG made the right call for himself because that notion is stupid and implies that other F1 teams would not sign a driver who complains about being unfairly mistreated. Seats are hard to come by and who is to say he will ever race again if he just went away. Then there is the matter of money, time and investment he made to the outfit.

As to the other 2 drivers, to me it is akin to someone who was married and then goes ahead and marries another woman. IMO that 2nd spouse is rendered illegitimate by the fact that there already is a first spouse and thus any rights they think they have are superseded by the needs of the first one.

Sauber are a mess. They could have signed erriccson as a 3rd driver and promised him a seat for 2016 after GVdG leaves. Something the less than impressive erricson could have used, given his abysmal performance last year.

[anfield5]

The question then comes up about can a team legally replace a driver during the season, if there is no specific clause in their contract relating to driver performance. i.e. if .... lets say Kimi is having another shocker of a season, can Ferrari put JEV in the car instead, or will that be in breach of his contract to race for 2015.

[steveaki13]

Teams have always replaced drivers, so why cant Sauber just do this after one race or something.

Anyway I have not had time to read everything, can someone explain to me how, a driver force a team to let him race?

[anfield5]

Simple, if he has signed a contract with the team stating that he has a race seat with them for 2015, and the team have also signed the contract. They are entering into a binding agreement, as with any written contract. Ergo if GvdG has such a contact with Sauber, then Sauber are obliged by law to honor it.

[steveaki13]

but since year dot, drivers have been replaced. Sometimes teams have gone through 6 or 7 drivers at the back of the field.

[anfield5]

True, and I would guess that Sauber, in the terms of the contract could replace him if he wasn't performing, which is different than reneging on the contract. (even though I have argued the other side of this earlier on - devils advocate etc ).

Any way you look at this it is messy. I can't imagine this sort of thing happening if Peter Sauber was still running things.

[CNR]

http://www.9news.com.au/national/201...in-court-again
"
A Formula One driver's bid to force Swiss team Sauber to let him race in the Australian Grand Prix continues on Thursday.

Sauber is appealing after Giedo van der Garde won a court ruling on Wednesday allowing him to drive in the race despite the team dumping him.

The team appealed the decision and the Supreme Court of Victoria will hear the appeal from 9.30am (AEDT).



Sauber had argued it would take two weeks to custom-fit a seat for Mr van der Garde, but the 29-year-old said it could be done much faster.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/03/12/03/36/f1-driver-s-aust-gp-bid-in-court-again#QI3RjkI46RDfKO3F.99"

[dj_bytedisaster]

Sauber have just been hammered the worst way possible. Kaltenborn's Ponzi scheme collapsed and the fucking bitch destroyed Peter Sauber's life work. Shall she burn in hell.

[truefan72]

The question then comes up about can a team legally replace a driver during the season, if there is no specific clause in their contract relating to driver performance. i.e. if .... lets say Kimi is having another shocker of a season, can Ferrari put JEV in the car instead, or will that be in breach of his contract to race for 2015.

It is quite simple really...they come up with a buyout clause. As any reasonable team would.

[I am evil Homer]

Court dismisses Sauber appeal: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118010

'Reason' and 'Sauber' don't seem to co-exist. If there's no clause they're royally screwed...either way, legally GvdG is meant to be in the car in Oz (minimum). If there's a performance clause he needs to race to activate it so I think one of the other guys is going to miss out come this weekend.

Or Sauber holds their hands up, says, 'we're wrong' and pays off vdG's contract. I think he deserves a shot, given Ericsson is hardly proven to be an amazing driver.