Car Claiming: What really goes down? (Page 1 of 3)

It is not a claiming race.  The ORGANIZERS always have the option of claiming a car but not other competitors.

You are correct.  I maintain that a claiming a cheater car or two would probably cut down the cheating to a very large extent.

agreed.  and honestly, Jay & Co. could probably immediately resell some of those cheater cars to another team for a profit.  i imagine some people would have ponied up for the cheater 'Stang at CMP, or any of the now-crushed miotters.  that would deter cheating and prevent the organizers from having to drag the thing with them back to Cali.

Probably.  Asshats.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but the point is that Jay wouldn't want the hassle. It's about a million times easier to say "Jay can countersue and win" than it is to achieve that result.

^^^ Damn lawyer.

The factor that nobody is taking into account here is that Jay doesn't really need any more hoopty-ass cars clogging up his living room (which is where he parks them). That said, the claim threat remains very much alive.

This is a very interesting subject and I have questioned the legality of the Curse, Claiming and the Rules/Contract.

It's been a long time since I had business law but this is an issue of unconscionability.  So out comes the old text book.

This whole issue gets into contracts and Unviersal Commercial Code (UCC).

According to my handy dandy Tenth Edition of Business  Law and the Regulatory Environment Concepts and Cases by more authors than I care to list, "unconscionability is generally taken to mean the absence of meaningful choice together with terms unreasonably advantageous to one of the parties."

So how does this affect the rules/contract with 24 Hours of Lemons/Driver's Door?

If a court finds that a contract or a term in a contract unconscionable, it can do one of three things:
1. it can refuse to enforce the entire agreement
2. it can refuse to enforce the unconscionable provision but enforce the rest of the contract
3. it can "limit the application of the unconscionable clause so as to avoid anyunscionable result."

The last alternative (#3) has been taken by the courts to mean that they can make adjustments in the terms of the contract.

I think you could definately argue a strong case about the curse and claiming to be unconscionable.

The curse is clearly the destruction of private property which is pretty much illegal in all states too.  to the best of my knowledge, a contract can not make an illegal act become legal.

If the curse involved tieing all the members of the cursed team to a pole and letting the crowd beat them with hammers, it wouldn't happen even if it was in the rules.  However a car is not a person and for some reason the mob likes to see a poor innocent and harmless car die for their amusement. 

Claiming is more or less a form of gambling.  So it's leglity is semi-questionable.  However, the $500 price tag is clearly inappropriate and clearly much more advantageous to the purchaser.  If the claimer had to pay fair market value you might get away with it.  Fair market value would include the car purchase, all the safety stuff and prep.  Prep should also include the sweat equity in the car.  So start thinking of a claiming price closer to $10,000.  All the teams free labor should get a price tag put on itand inclided in the price.

In my opinion, a court would find the curse, and $500 claiming unconscionable. 

All the teams that have been cursed have been "good sports" about it.  Phillips taking it twice and running on the third time.  I am not sure if that is a testament to his "sportsmanship" or insanity.

I think I've said more than enough for now.

You're totally writing that entire screed on your car's hood at Houston. Already got it printed out!

I think a counter to most of the arguments you made, Troy, would be this:
At an event where you are participating in wheel-to-wheel racing, you don't have a reasonable expectation that your car is guaranteed to be worth anything at the end anyway.  Usually half the field have critical failures in their cars within a few hours of the start the race.

A hypothetical lawsuit-er saying "I came to this event AND THEN MY CAR WAS UNFAIRLY DESTROYED RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" has a pretty weak argument when you consider that if it wasn't people's curse or a claim, he could have lost his car to an accident, fire, or catastrophic mechanical failure in the hours of racing he lost.  At least if your car is claimed, you are compensated.  If your car was simply destroyed in an accident, you don't get squat.

To Everyone that clings to the arguement that your car could be destroyed in an accident at any time, you are right and you could die at any time too.  However, we don't take a vote and shot someone for good measure. 

Maybe we can put the names of everyone who has made this pathetically lame arguement into a hat.  Draw a name and let them take their chances with an excavator, maybe put them in their car during the curse.  Do you think your cage will hold up a dozer?  I'd rather be in my car on the track, the odds are way better.

Very few cars have died in Lemons due to an accident or fire.  Especially with the much cleaner driving now.  The odds are in your favor.  If you get cursed, the odds are definately not in your favor.

Thankfully, only one unfortunate gentleman died during Lemons due to a heart attack.

Problem for the person who IS enough of a whiny douchebag to sue over getting bought or cursed.  If they do and they end this fun game of ours I am SURE there are enough people in this bunch with low enough morals to ensure the person NEVER enjoys one penny of the settlement they receive....

Yes I'm from NY and thats how we roll....