frarob-TOYOTA HAS BREACHED A CONTRACT - Is that clear?

No.

That is exactly what all the high priced lawyers will get together and decide.

You and I can agree to disagree.

Our opinions are entertaining but in the end,meaningless.

If there is any obvious element, it is the fact that Toyota breached the Concorde Agreement. The current agreement is a modification of the 1997 agreement, itself modified in 1998. This document (1998 modification) has been made publicly available. It contains the performance clause that I quoted quite early in this thread.

I think you introduce some interesting topics, but from my personal experience preparing thousands of contracts I think some of those elements are unrealistic. For example, this is a civil matter at this stage, no criminal element. The most basic of contracts will include a venue clause. Since Toyota signed the agreement, a change of venue request will be rejected predicated upon the language of said venue clause.

I have downloaded a copy of the 1997 Agreement. I will correct myself and state the the jurisdiction is England and any arbitration is to be heard in Switzerland.

Here is some language from the Agreement:

"10.3 Each competitor shall participate in each Event with the number of cars entered by it for the FIA F1 Championship, of which such Event forms part. In default, the competitor concerned shall subject as herein provided be liable to make a payment (a “Payment”) to such Promoters in accordance with Schedule 9 hereto unless the F1 Commission decide to cancel the requirement for such
competitor to make the Payment or to reduce the amount of the Payment to be made."

The information in Schedule 9 may not be up to date, but this language or very similar language is likely contained within the current and valid agreement which Toyota executed.