I was going through some old posts and I found this ironic quote by Scott Sharp from last fall.
"We're committed to the IRL for another year, at least, although we might add a sports-car race here or there," (Sharp) said.
Riiiight! The good news for Sharp is that he will not be legally prevented from racing in “a sports-car race here or there” this year, but the Judge presiding over the dueling lawsuits between Sharp and Rahal Letterman Racing determined Scott’s going to be a bit lighter in the pocket book.
Miami (February 13, 2008) – Because Scott Sharp violated his obligation to race exclusively for Rahal Letterman Racing in 2008, Rahal Letterman Racing was vindicated today in its breach-of-contract allegations against Scott Sharp Sports, LLC pursuant to an order issued by United States District Court Judge Hon. Adalberto Jordan.So The Bobby will get a check somewhere down the line and The Immortal One will go on to race sports cars elsewhere. Scott may race them here or there, he may race them anywhere!
Specifically, in the final conclusion of the seven-part ruling, Judge Jordan states: ‘It seems to me that (Sharp) has knowingly breached one agreement in order to enter another. He may continue to race for Highcroft in the 2008 season, but this case shall go on, and he may pay for his choices in the end, quite literally, if a jury views the evidence as I do.’ In addition, Judge Jordan stated that ‘according to the evidence presented so far, Rahal Letterman (Racing) has not committed fraud or breach of contract. If anything, it is the Sharp defendants who have breached and abandoned their contractual commitments’.
Judge Jordan also analyzed the evidence as follows: ‘The record demonstrates that Rahal Letterman (Racing) did everything basically right and worked with the Sharp defendants at all times in good faith…Therefore the Sharp defendants have no excuse for violating the restrictive covenant in the Driver Agreement. For these reasons, I conclude that Rahal Letterman (Racing) will likely succeed on the merits of its breach of contract claim against the Sharp defendants.’