155 replies to this topic

[ensign14]

Quote

Originally posted by KenC

Thanks for the response, which leads me to another question: Isn't Jordan limited to material harm? That is, the difference between what the Vodafone deal purported to be, and what Jordan actually got from their main sponsor? Are there punitive damages involved in Jordan's figure? And is there a punitive damage cap in the UK?

1. Jordan has an obligation to mitigate its loss, i.e. not sit there and do nothing but find an alternative sponsor. And they would have to account for the difference.

However, there could be a loss of profits element in the claim - i.e. had Vodafone coughed up in full on day 1, EJ would have been able to get a car running earlier, better driver, more points, the odd win &c.

2. Punitive damages are anathema to English law in almost all circumstances and Jordan would not get them.

3. Something which has not yet been raised - as the matter is in Court now, chances are the initial claim form was filed a year or so ago. It may have been 'fast-tracked' however.

[Scudetto]

Thus far, it looks like this was one can of worms Eddie should have left unopened.

[Ghostrider]

I agree with you. Looks kind of shady. Especially that letter to Orange. :

[bira]

Quote

Mr Aldous also produced a letter from Eddie Jordan to rival mobile phone operator Orange offering "rights to full title sponsorship" which was dated April 20, almost a month after Jordan alleges that Vodafone had given its verbal committment.

That to me is one strong piece of evidence against Jordan's claim

[Ghostrider]

Yepp, if that letter exists Jordan can kiss that case goodbye.

And Jordan will by this court case scare off any potential sponsors from dealing with Jordan, or even negotiate with Jordan.

EJ is making stranger and stranger decisions for every year.

[KenC]

Looking more and more like greenmail. For teams like Jordan and Minardi $5million can mean the difference between making it to season end, so perhaps, Jordan is hoping that Vodafone will want to make this headache go away by settling early for a little cash.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I dont know thta the letter is that important (unless its a jury trial) Vodafone saying "you've got the deal" doesnt mean Jordan have to take it, or have to stop talking to other potential sponsors, even rival brands.

[ensign14]

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I dont know thta the letter is that important (unless its a jury trial) Vodafone saying "you've got the deal" doesnt mean Jordan have to take it, or have to stop talking to other potential sponsors, even rival brands.

It does, because Jordan's case is that the title sponsorship was done and dusted following that conversation. Otherwise, legally, Vodafone would have been offering to sponsor, Jordan wwould not have accepted, and there would have been no contract. (No jury trials in civil matters in England, except libel, malicious falsehood and wrongful imprisonment, BTW.)

But, if 1 week later Vodafone said 'stuff you', Eej would have to find alternative sponsors. Mitigation of loss. So the letter may only be evidence of that.

Furthermore, if the contract was a done deal and Jordan was still seeking title sponsorship afterwards, it could be evidence of a breach by Jordan but not that Vodafone were not in breach. In the circumstances that would entitle Vodafone to sue for damages - but not necessarily terminate any contract they had. Very tricky area legally.

The way litigation works in England that letter will have been known to the parties for some weeks now so both sides would know how to deal with it.

If the letter is from Eddie Jordan, why is Charles Aldous QC questioning Ian Phillips about it? Suggests that Vodafone is relying pretty heavily on that letter.

I would not necessarily bet on this case going to a final verdict. Jordan's case will get worse as its witnesses appear. Then it will get better when Vodafone's appear. The parties could settle at any time. Then, if there is a decision, permission to appeal will certainly be sought and if granted an appeal will last the best part of a year, during which time settlement could take place.

[KenC]

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I dont know thta the letter is that important (unless its a jury trial) Vodafone saying "you've got the deal" doesnt mean Jordan have to take it, or have to stop talking to other potential sponsors, even rival brands.

Yes, but for Jordan to win their argument, they have to show that they relied upon Vodafone's verbal offer, and thus were harmed by it when it was retracted. This letter seems to indicate that Jordan did not ever believe they had a verbal contract, as why would they be attempting to sell their advertising space to someone else, given the very lucrative verbal deal they already had on offer.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Quote

Originally posted by KenC

Yes, but for Jordan to win their argument, they have to show that they relied upon Vodafone's verbal offer, and thus were harmed by it when it was retracted. This letter seems to indicate that Jordan did not ever believe they had a verbal contract, as why would they be attempting to sell their advertising space to someone else, given the very lucrative verbal deal they already had on offer.

Or what if he was using the Vodafone interest to leverage an offer with Orange?

[KenC]

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


Or what if he was using the Vodafone interest to leverage an offer with Orange?

Sure, they could have, but then they just lost their case against Vodafone.

[Jamesboilson]

I think Jordan have left it too long to file this case against Vodafone.
Now that they need money to survive I thing eddie is trying everthing.
I read on http://www.f1oddnews.com that over the canadian GP weekend
all the team said they will help jordan through it money problems

http://www.f1oddnews.com also has an update on the jordan case today

[Ghostrider]

Quote

Originally posted by bertocchi
From: Pitpass.com
"As the Jordan - Vodafone court case continues, the Irish team's director of business affairs Ian Phillips was questioned.
"In 2002, how many points did you win in the constructors' championship?" asked Vodafone's QC Charles Aldous.
"I don't know," replied Phillips, "could it be 19?"
Having thought about it for a while, Mr Phillips changes his mind: "I actually think we scored 11 points in the constructors' championship."
"Not a very successful season, then." said Aldous."
"No, it wasn't," replied Phillips.
In fact, the Silverstone outfit scored only 9 points, it was in 2001 that Jordan scored 19."

I just wonder what these questions has to do with the case? Whether Jordan had a succesfull season or not shouldn't really change anything??

[Dudley]

Quote

I think Jordan have left it too long to file this case against Vodafone.

Read the thread.

Not only was this probably filed at least a year ago, they have 6 years to file it under law anyway.

[bira]

Jordan [unilaterally] dropped the case against Vodafone today.
http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/11321/.html

[KinetiK]

Quote

Originally posted by bira
Jordan [unilaterally] dropped the case against Vodafone today.
http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/11321/.html

Jordan came to the realization they had no hope of winning the case and dropped it, not much of a surprise there. Jordan have committed a Carlinesque type of crime here, they clawed and scratched their way up to the middle and ****ed themselves all the way down to the bottom. Too bad, so sad.

[Hotwheels]

Quote

Originally posted by bira
Jordan [unilaterally] dropped the case against Vodafone today.
http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/11321/.html

Any chance of you getting the inside scoop of the real reason ?? Who pressed what buttons for this to happen? It's hard to believe that Eddie had a change of heart .

[Garagiste]

What a way to waste a Million (which seems a bit cheap to me).

[WACKO]

Quote

Originally posted by ensign14
Technically, Goldwyn was not entirely incorrect, as a 'verbal' contract is one recorded in words (as opposed to conduct). Trouble is 'verbal' is seen as synonymous with 'oral'.

For a contract to be formed under English law you need 4 things:

1. offer;
2. acceptance;
3. consideration (something valuable to show that there is a contract rather than a gift);
4. intention to create legal relations (as above).

The dispute here will be about 1 and 2, because 4 is presumed where there are commercial companies and 3 includes a promise to fulfil the contractual obligations. 1 will be in dispute because things like adverts, prospectuses and articles being put on sale do not constitute offers - they are 'invitations to treat', i.e. an indication that someone can make an offer along the lines suggested.

So, if you are in a shop, technically you offer to buy something by handing it to the till attendant, and the shop accepts the contract to purchase by scanning it in. A till attendant has the authority of the shop to enter into the contract.

Or if you place an ad in Exchange and Mart, that is technically an invitation to treat - you are not bound to sell to the first chap who comes along. They will come along and make an offer which you can accept or refuse.

If Jordan and Vodafone thrashed out something in writing, it was sent to Vodafone, and the Vodafone chap said 'you've got the deal', then I would think there was a contract. Regardless of whether it was signed. The offer would be the last thing Jordan sent to Vodafone which was capable of being accepted.

Vodafone will presumably argue that:
1. the last thing Jordan signed was not an offer, but an invitation to treat;
2. if it was an offer, it could only be accepted in writing;
3. the person who said 'you've got the deal' did not have ostensible authority to bind Vodafone in a deal;
4. he never said it anyway (or not in a context that it could be treated as acceptance - e.g. 'if you satisfy us on painting the car red, you've got the deal').

And yes, you can have a contract concluded on a telephone, it happens a huge amount (I was involved in a case which went to the Court of Appeal when someone argued that the contract was concluded in writing and not on the telephone, they lost, ha ha).

It's just a job to prove it...

I guess you're right. At least in The Netherlands it is like that as well. But there need to be valid witnesses as otherwise it's their word against the other's. Now that Jordan has suddenly pulled out, it is very likely that they indeed had reasonable evidence that Vodafone has verbally committed themselves. I think all is settled behind the desk; Jordan receiving a very good share of their 2004 to-be-budget and even more important, Vodafone averting the risks of some very bad publicity when the case would be lost. For sure it is settled, no way Jordan would pull out at the very last moment otherwise as they could not have known the verdict...

[Robbie]

From RTE online

Quote

Formula One team Jordan have dropped their law-suit against mobile phone company Vodafone, leaving Eddie Jordan with a huge legal bill after he agreed to pay Vodafone's costs.

Jordan had brought the case claiming that the mobile phone giants reneged on a verbal agreement for a sponsorship deal with his formula one team, before making a last-minute switch to Ferrari.

The crux of the case centered on claims that Vodafone's global branding director David Haines had told Jordan 'You've got the deal' and that, based on previous negotiations between the parties, this statement constituted a binding agreement. However, in the British highcourt today, Jordan surprisingly dropped the case and offered to pay all of Vodafone's legal costs.

Jordan's director of business affairs Ian Phillips played down fears that the failure of the court case would make a negative impact of the F1 team. "We have dropped the case. But the team is not in jeopardy - we will be here next week and next year," he said.

The Jordan F1 team have struggled this season, and despite Giancarlo Fisichella's victory in the Brazilian Grand Prix, they have failed to make much of an impact on the drivers championship table.

Jordan GP, it seems to me, have entirely forgotten all they used to know about the art of F1 survival. Other posters on this BB pointed out that this case was unlikely to succeed, and now I dread to imagine what Vodaphone's legal bills must be.

When €ddie goes complaining about the plight of small teams I find it hard to imagine that he won't be reminded of the need for prudence. I am certain that Jordan GP has at most one further full season in them: the motivation in the engineering department is zero, everything costs a fortune, no decent driver wants to be with them. And worst for €ddie is that the time of manufacturers wanting to buy into teams, a la Ford/Jaguar, is gone.

[Scudetto]

Quote

Originally posted by Robbie
From RTE online

Whoops! Not so fast...Judge Refuses Jordan's Request to Drop Vodafone Case.

Don't know how you Brits run your courts, but here in the US, once the complaining party wishes to cease his litigation, the issue is moot -- unless its a criminal case where the "People" are the complaining party. Sounds like this judge wants to publicly display someone's head on a platter.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The way I read it was that the case is effectively over and Judge made up and his mind and Jordan cant now say "**** this might not go our way, lets pretend this never happened"

[bira]

Quote

Originally posted by Scudetto


Whoops! Not so fast...Judge Refuses Jordan's Request to Drop Vodafone Case.

Don't know how you Brits run your courts, but here in the US, once the complaining party wishes to cease his litigation, the issue is moot -- unless its a criminal case where the "People" are the complaining party. Sounds like this judge wants to publicly display someone's head on a platter.

Briefly: in English law, there is a cutoff time for a plaintiff to withdraw its case unilateraly. After the hearing is over, a case can be discontinued only with the agreement of both sides. If both sides agree to it, the judge must accept it even if it's minutes before he's about to read his decision.

However, in this case, Vodafone did not accept Jordan's request for discontinuation. They want a judgement and they want it to be public. I guess they believe the judgement will "cleanse" them from the allegations made in this case.

In any event, Jordan do not want this decision made public. The judge accepted Vodafone's claim that there is a public interest in making this decision public and therefore rejected Jordan's request. They have until Monday at 4pm to appeal this rejection (or get Vodafone to support them). Otherwise, the decision will be made public.

Scudetto, there is logic to this procedure. It means that you can't go to court and vilify someone arbitrarily, and then once you dragged him through the mud, you withdraw - leaving the damage of his public image done.

[HSJ]

So does it look like Jordan is going to get a spanking from the judge or something, i.e. lose money? That could be the end of Jordan.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It'd have to be ridiculously large to hurt the team to the point of not showing up anymore.

[Scudetto]

Quote

Originally posted by bira
Scudetto, there is logic to this procedure. It means that you can't go to court and vilify someone arbitrarily, and then once you dragged him through the mud, you withdraw - leaving the damage of his public image done.

Thanks Bira! That is sound logic indeed, and on that basis, I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Now I can bill my time for these posts as "continuing professional education!"

[bira]

OK, Jordan is now resigned to losing and has decided not to appeal. The decision in the Jordan-Vodafone case will therefore be handed by the judge early next week.

http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/11329/.html

[Todd]

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It'd have to be ridiculously large to hurt the team to the point of not showing up anymore.

Do you mean this season, or once it becomes clear that potential F1 sponsors would be stupid to even enter into preliminary discussions with Jordan?

[HSJ]

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It'd have to be ridiculously large to hurt the team to the point of not showing up anymore.

Sure. I was thinking more about next season. They seem to be just making it as it is, and any major loss might break the camel's back, so to say, even if not quite immediately.

[Rene]

Makes Jordan quote of

Quote

"Jordan Grand Prix has decided to withdraw its legal claim against Vodafone. We realise that for the good of the sport it is in everyone's interest to draw a line under this episode and concentrate on the rest of this season and the years ahead," said chief executive Eddie Jordan.

Seem very disengenous, 'good for the sport'...what a laugh, they want to bail when its clear they are going to loose....the amount of lies this man tells is truly stunning

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well that damage was allready done. In that category the court case would only decide how much $$$ you'd physically lose by talking to Jordan.

[Scudetto]

The byproduct of this whole thing is that any sponsor who dares to negotiate with Jordan in the future will probably generate an amount of paper costing more than its sponsorship just in documenting each and every interaction with the team so as not to get hauled into court later. Daft move, EJ.

[scheivlak]

Latest news:
Jordan decide not to appeal; resign to losing -
http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/11329/.html

Ouch!

[ensign14]

Hmm, missed all this. Most likely that, in a case which was down to witness evidence, Jordan's did not come up to proof...but Jordan can still seek permission to appeal from the judgment as handed down.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I wonder why you can sue a company for saying "you've got the deal" in a private phone conversation and then not following through, but when Jaguar say publically "Pizzonia's with us all year" and then fire him they dont get sued.

[bira]

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I wonder why you can sue a company for saying "you've got the deal" in a private phone conversation and then not following through, but when Jaguar say publically "Pizzonia's with us all year" and then fire him they dont get sued.

Jordan sued for indemnification, based on a supposed agreement that had not been kept. In Pizzonia's case, the indemnification for the supposed "breach of agreement" is already locked into the contract between him and the team. If, for example, they had fired him and not paid him for the rest of the year - he could "sue" them by way of taking them to the Contract Recognition Board.

[bira]

Well, Jordan lost the case with the worst possible criticism from a high court judge. And, there is a now a legally binding document, libel-free, that says in black and white that Eddie Jordan is a liar.

Lovely.

http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/11383/.html

[int2str]

Is this the end of Jordan GP?

I've just finished the article on AtlasF1 about the verdict in this case. All throughout the article I couldn't help but thinking "This is it. No more Jordan soon...". Which large sponsor (asides the established B&H) would want to deal with Jordan now? If you risk ridiculous lawsuits every time you want to give Jordan a big check, I'd rather look to see if Minardi still needs money .

Seriously, I always liked Jordan and Eddie Jordan himself, but this must seriously endanger the future of the team?

No?

Cheers,
André

[Wouter]

It would probably better if Jordan sold his team now, to Red Bull or so.

[KinetiK]

Quote

Originally posted by bira
Well, Jordan lost the case with the worst possible criticism from a high court judge. And, there is a now a legally binding document, libel-free, that says in black and white that Eddie Jordan is a liar.

Lovely.

http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/11383/.html

While I am unsure whether EJ has brought the sport into disrepute, upon finishing the Atlasf1 news article I couldn't help but think that F1 has been tarnished by this fiasco. EJ, why did you do it, no you're no better than a domain name squatter Eddie!

[Scudetto]

Quote

Originally posted by KinetiK
While I am unsure whether EJ has brought the sport into disrepute, upon finishing the Atlasf1 news article I couldn't help but think that F1 has been tarnished by this fiasco. EJ, why did you do it, no you're no better than a domain name squatter Eddie!

Me thinks that's part of Eddie's reasoning behind his 11th hour attempt to withdraw the suit or to keep the judgment sealed. I believe he knew that the court was going to berate him pretty thoroughly - which it did - and wanted to save face.

[Rocky]

The filing of this lawsuit always seemed so desperate that I kept wondering if the suit itself was his last ditch effort to save his team. Now that he has lost in the worst possible way I wonder if it is over now.

The bad publicity this will surely drive Jordan's partners to take a good look at their breach clauses in their agreements with Jordan.

[paulb]

Quote

Originally posted by int2str
Is this the end of Jordan GP?

I've just finished the article on AtlasF1 about the verdict in this case. All throughout the article I couldn't help but thinking "This is it. No more Jordan soon...". Which large sponsor (asides the established B&H) would want to deal with Jordan now? If you risk ridiculous lawsuits every time you want to give Jordan a big check, I'd rather look to see if Minardi still needs money .

Seriously, I always liked Jordan and Eddie Jordan himself, but this must seriously endanger the future of the team?

No?

Cheers,
André

I saw something at the Jordan website that said they had funds set aside to handle unplanned expenses so that team cash flow will not be effected. Can't find it now. Given EJs credibility, I was probably hallucinating.

[ensign14]

Story going around was that EJ was going to use part of his own personal fortune to fund the case.

Jordan's tactics were amazingly naif. I wonder why they did not listen to the legal advice they must have been getting. As soon as Jordan's witnesses were destroyed in the witness box, that was the time to wiithdraw, or persuade Vodafone to settle - along the lines of 'well, your case cannot get any better, now your witnesses will be subject to embarrassing cross-examination, but we'll drop it if you do not pursue costs' or some such.

And applying to withdraw the case when the verdict was due was ridiculous. If they knew it was going to be bad news, they simply should have let it come out and announce that they intended to appeal. For something worth £150m permission to appeal is almost always automatic. Then they could have offered to pay costs and drop the appeal, with the benefit that (a) Vodafone would have a judgment vindicating its execs and (b) Jordan could say that the parties agreed on the basis that there was no liability.

Having said that, overturning a judge's interpretation of witness evidence is always difficult, but still possible.

[Ghostrider]

For the future, I really hope that EJ makes better and more wise decisions. I honestly don't know what he was thinking when going for this case, in the same mould as I didn't understand the Fretzen sacking, which also at the time it happened didn't seem like a very wise move.

[BRG]

Quote

Originally posted by int2str
Which large sponsor (asides the established B&H) would want to deal with Jordan now?

Jordan is small fry conmpared to bunko artisits like Bernie and Flavio who have been running their scams for years. Everyone blithely goes on dealing with those two though, so why should they worry about an unsuccessful shyster like Eddie?

[Clatter]

Quote

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I wonder why you can sue a company for saying "you've got the deal" in a private phone conversation and then not following through, but when Jaguar say publically "Pizzonia's with us all year" and then fire him they dont get sued.

Because Jag havnt fired him thats why. He is still with them, but has been demoted to test driver.

[Pilla]

Apparently a couple of years ago when all this started Jordan put aside a few million pounds for the law suit, he also commented on F1-live.com that his team is financialy secure, he will not sell, and his team has a big future.

In F1-racing magazine a few months ago it was also said that Jordan is close to signing a new title sponsor.

[bira]

The full judgement: http://www.atlasf1.c.../judgement.html

It's very long, but well, well worth the read

[ensign14]

I glanced through it earlier today, there are some very very surprising things in there which should have sent alarm bells flashing through Jordan's lawyers' minds - e.g. the late disclosure of the 'contemporaneous' note...

Vodafone's lawyers were Herbert Smith, who are the most Rottweilerish of litigation firms in England, although that is sometimes their undoing (been against them once, won, ha ha).

Jordan's were Fladgate Fielder, well known but not in the higest echelon. Like Jordan, in fact.