I have been saying quite the anons you've had today come by on my dash............. instead of being salty about it on your behalf I figured I'd hop in your inbox and give my POV on a possible Merc appeal and why I think it would be useless.
Like you and many others have pointed out already: Merc has a case in that sense that taken strictly by the letter, article 48.12 was breached, yes. However, in a contract (because that is what the regulations are, in the base of it - teams agree that the FIA is the governing body and makes the rules) we never ever ever really look at just the letter of the law, to put it like that. Context and circumstances will always be of equal importance and that is what would make Mercs appeal pretty useless.
Teams agreed to finish the race in green if possible - the track was clear when the race restarted, so all circumstances aside it was definitely possible to not finish under sc. Merc could attempt to disarm this argument by saying something along the lines of 'well, ifwe had forseen THIS....' Problem with that is that French, British and international law is pretty big on pacta sunt servanda aka: if you agree to something, you have to stick to that. I don't this they can talk their way out of that one.
Like you mentioned earlier, article 15 is not in Mercs favour and it will override 48.12. In law all over the world, the general rule will always be that the specialized rule will overrule the general rule (general rule; either all or none of the cars must be unlapped, specialized rule: but the race director can make a different position). The argument that Masi made the choice for sensation instead of safety can't be proven - it's literally Mercs word against Masi's.
Lastly, yes, any court, even an international court of appeals will consider the reputation of F1. Of course, an independant international court does not care about money or PR value at all. However, it will most definitely weigh into their consideration about why the call was made, and judges will most likely say 'well, given the circumstances, it is understandable that so and so'. Judges will always try to place themselves in the POV of both parties, which then includes Masi or course.
All in all I just don't think Merc has a strong chance even though in the base of it they do have a point because an article was breached. Also - would like to point out this does not reflect my opinion on the matter, but when I look at this from a strictly legal point of view, this is what I see. And lastly, people please stop being rude to Al for giving information - thanks 🔪
Early happy holidays to you Al if you celebrate anything 💕
Thank youuu 💕
This clears up so much stuff, it’s very helpful, I appreciate it massively.
I know I already answered in the comments but I’ve just realised how annoying this interpretation is and this has made me go and ick up my computer so that I can actually look at it all over again. @bahrain-lights I feel like you might have a legal background (law student would be my prediction) so I would be interested in why you think some of those things
Like you and many others have pointed out already: Merc has a case in that sense that taken strictly by the letter, article 48.12 was breached, yes.
Yes.
However, in a contract (because that is what the regulations are, in the base of it - teams agree that the FIA is the governing body and makes the rules)
It’s actually a question of public law, not contract law. Mercedes is protesting the bad governance from the FIA through Masi (who acts as an agent)
we never ever ever really look at just the letter of the law, to put it like that. Context and circumstances will always be of equal importance and that is what would make Mercs appeal pretty useless.
Contexts and the letter of the law are two very different things. In contract law, it’s true that the context can mean that a clause or the whole contract is void or voidable (for example if there was duress, misrepresentation...). However, I fail to see when courts do not use the letter of the law otherwise. And contexts, circumstances, and the letter of the law are never of equal importance.
Teams agreed to finish the race in green if possible - the track was clear when the race restarted, so all circumstances aside it was definitely possible to not finish under sc.
Where is this agreement. When was it approved by the FIA as the governing body? Masi cannot make contracts with teams.
Merc could attempt to disarm this argument by saying something along the lines of 'well, ifwe had forseen THIS....' Problem with that is that French, British and international law is pretty big on pacta sunt servandaaka: if you agree to something, you have to stick to that. I don't this they can talk their way out of that one.
Pacta sunt servanda would actually mean in this situation that the FIA agreed to the regulations and so they have to stick to that, they can’t just use a made up agreement to talk their way out of it. Also I find the use of principles like that (as if they ever have any kind of impact) to be absolutely ridiculous - but some of my old professors would disagree with me, so I won’t make comments (although I did write a beautiful essay on why principles of international law should not be considered to be law!) (also my degree makes me legally obligated to tell you that British law is NOT a thing. ban it from your legal vocabulary, please.)
Like you mentioned earlier, article 15 is not in Mercs favour and it will override 48.12. In law all over the world, the general rule will always be that the specialized rule will overrule the general rule (general rule; either all or none of the cars must be unlapped, specialized rule: but the race director can make a different position).
Masi’s discretionary powers is very much not explicit enough in the regulations for you to be that certain!
The argument that Masi made the choice for sensation instead of safety can't be proven - it's literally Mercs word against Masi's.
Masi admitted it when he only let the cars between Lewis and Max unlap themselves. Why was Carlos not a leader?
Lastly, yes, any court, even an international court of appeals will consider the reputation of F1.
They won’t give a fuck.
Of course, an independant international court does not care about money or PR value at all.
Correct!
However, it will most definitely weigh into their consideration about why the call was made, and judges will most likely say 'well, given the circumstances, it is understandable that so and so'.
I’m curious as to what circumstances would make them say that. “Let them race” is NOT a legal principle, championships have finished under the safety car.
Judges will always try to place themselves in the POV of both parties, which then includes Masi or course.
Yea the judges won’t think Masi is a poor meow-meow. His job is to know the regulations. And the judges very well might put themselves in the POV of Merc, whose strategy was built around the regulations rather than the unprecedented discretion of a steward.
