Blackstone Code

At least you won't lose!

This has satisfied Lynch's requirements for the current situation.

A large number of newspapers reported the news, and the "Bupen Times", which had been pessimistic about Shijia in the past few days, came out again, saying that this was the beginning of a new legend for Shijia.

Their editor-in-chief also highly praised Lynch's skills in the report, saying that with his intervention, the current downward trend was stopped in a timely manner. He was favored by many evaluation agencies and was expected to create new miracles.

There are also some local stores in Bupen, and they have also had their counters stolen.

Just as everyone was looking forward to it, the first court hearing began.

A total of twenty-four Bupen stores unilaterally tore up the agreement with every moment, and removed every moment counters without authorization before the contract was fulfilled. The court accepted the case and conducted a trial.

Twenty-four shop owners, with the help of Shi Luck and Colorful, hired a barrister who was willing to represent them in this lawsuit "for free".

According to Bu Pen's market situation, if you want the barrister to fight a lawsuit for him, it will cost at least hundreds of thousands to hundreds of thousands, or even more.

He told the media that the reason why he did this was that he did not want capitalists to use their wealth and power to use legal weapons indiscriminately, so that the law would become a sharp knife in the hands of capitalists to "slaughter" the people.

His speech triggered a lot of heated discussion in society, and many people believed that he was the truly conscientious lawyer in the federal government and a moral model in the legal profession.

But they didn't know that before he announced "free", he received 300,000 in legal representation fees given to him by well-wishers.

Shi Luck and Colorful are not willing to go off personally and fight every moment for the time being. They need a lawsuit to determine what they will encounter after they go off.

On such a pleasant weekend, the Boupen City Court was in session.

After the plaintiff's lawyer expressed his claims, the judge looked at the attorney in the dock and asked, "Does the defendant's lawyer have anything to say?"

When he asked the question, he lowered his head and looked at some explanatory documents in front of him. In fact, there was no need for a formal trial in this case. The verdict could be pronounced by just going to the express court.

From the judge's point of view, these defendants' breach of contract was very obvious. No matter what reasons they had, they had created a fait accompli of breach of contract.

Moreover, the only litigation claim in this case is a lawsuit to recover liquidated damages for breach of contract. It is simple and clear. If it were placed in a fast-track court, the verdict could be pronounced in two minutes at most.

It's just that society and the media are paying attention to this matter now. In addition, a group of people at the bottom of society are being sued every time. Some rights organizations are paying close attention to this matter, and they have no choice but to put it in court for trial.

Looking at the rows of cameras in the back, you can see how much people are paying attention to this case.

The defendant's lawyer stood up and said, "Your honor, I have two statements to make."

The judge nodded, unable to give this guy a chance to speak.

All barristers are superior to others in terms of professional capabilities, but also in terms of their social network.

Once the most famous barrister in the federation, the winning rate of cases handled by him was one of the best in the entire federal judicial history.

His own excellence is only partly due to his father.

Growing from a local court judge to a federal supreme court judge is the main reason why he can always guarantee his winning rate.

Later, his father failed when he ran for life as a justice, and the barrister gradually faded out of people's sight, leaving only some myths in the industry.

For example, the defendant's lawyer also has some connections in the judicial department, and this judge happens to know this.

"First point, this case is not a completely isolated case. Before this case occurred, the defendants I represented had actually sued the court for breach of contract at every moment..."

As he spoke, his assistant brought some materials to the judge's desk.

The judge and prosecutor and everyone else each gets a copy.

As they flipped through the pages, the defendant's lawyer continued, "It can be seen from the initiation of these lawsuits that it was actually the plaintiff's unilateral breach of contract, and my attorney is solving the problem through legal channels."

"There is a sequence to this matter, so..."

Every moment's lawyer raised his hand casually, "I object to the defendant's lawyer's statement. Your Honor, the litigation claims in this case are very clear, and there are no problems as mentioned by the defendant's lawyer."

"We have not defaulted in any form. We have sufficient supply at all times and can ship goods anytime and anywhere."

"It is a one-sided lawsuit that has not gone through a court trial and has no specific trial results. I think it has no reference value and significance in this case."

The judge was silent for a while and nodded, "The objection is valid, defendant's lawyer. The lawsuits you mentioned have not yet had judicial results."

"Unless it is confirmed that the plaintiff has breached the contract first, and it has an inevitable relationship with this case, your statement has no meaning."

The defendant's lawyer's thinking is very clear. Let the plaintiff first, that is, the first person to breach the contract at every moment. As long as the judiciary recognizes this, then the lawsuit against all shop owners at every moment will be meaningless.

Why?

Because after the breach of contract at any time, the shop owners have unilaterally terminated the contract. This is a decision made under the prerequisite of breach of contract at any time, and will also be recognized and protected by the judiciary.

In this way, no matter what the counterclaim is at any moment, there is no threat to the shop owners.

It's a pity that today's judge is not that slippery, or he does not side with the defendant.

Many things are not a breach of contract if you say it is a breach of contract. The Federation is a country governed by laws. The law has not yet said that it has breached a breach of contract at all times. If you first say that it has breached a breach of contract, who do you listen to?

There is no doubt that we must listen to the final explanation from the judicial department.

The defendant's lawyer glanced sideways at his opponent on the other side, and then said, "There is another question, your honor, I don't think the loss of counters every moment is an accident."

"According to the intelligence I have collected, more than 2,000 stores across the country have sued them for breach of contract because they lost their counters. I have reason to believe that this is actually an attempt to obstruct justice."

"Every time, some despicable means were used to steal that kind of counter, and they used it as a means of attack to sue ordinary people who wanted to use the law to protect their rights and interests. This case has been dealt with after the conclusion of another case."

The "other case" mentioned by the defendant's lawyer was that more than 2,000 stores simultaneously reported to the police that their counters had been stolen. What the defendant's lawyer meant was that the nature of the case could only be determined after the thief was found.

The lawyer representing Moment raised his hand again, "I object to the defendant's lawyer's argument, your honor."

"If the defendant's lawyer does not have concrete and valid evidence to prove his point of view, then I will sue him for defamation."

The judge frowned, but this time he did not immediately support the plaintiff's lawyer's accusation.

Because he knows that what the defendant's lawyer says is not necessarily wrong.

Suddenly there were more than 2,000 "fraud cases" across the country. What's even more outrageous is that the other party didn't want anything, but just dragged away the counter of Every moment. To say that this has nothing to do with Every moment, That's absolutely impossible.

Even the judge thought about every moment, or that Lynch made arrangements according to the plaintiffs mentioned in the subpoena, otherwise there would be no such coincidence.

The vast majority of the plaintiffs who sued Lynch were defrauded of their counters at every moment?

But the Federation is a country ruled by law, and everyone can have any opinion. Even if some people now come out and say that the president is actually an alien, and his purpose is to control the world, there is no problem.

Expressing one's own thoughts on any occasion is the most basic right granted to every federal citizen by the Charter, but if you want your claims and opinions to gain judicial support, you must provide evidence.

Some people may think this is stupid. Everyone knows that this must be related to every moment, and they ask for any evidence. This is definitely an act of cover-up.

But having said that, if there is no need for evidence just because “everyone thinks”, and the number of “everyone” among capitalists is definitely much greater than that of ordinary people, then will it mean that in the future, what capitalists say will be what they say?

So sometimes rules that seem to make things difficult for ordinary people are actually designed to better protect ordinary people.

Whether what the defendant's lawyer said is true or not is not important. What is important is the evidence.

The judge looked at the defendant's lawyer and asked, "How do you prove what you said?"

The defendant's lawyer shook his head, "I can't prove it, so I hope that the sentencing time of this lawsuit can be temporarily postponed, and a trial will be added after the fraud case is over to try the case again."

The judge is very hesitant. Once he makes a decision, other courts and other judges may use his decision as a reference. This is also the consensus of the judicial community.

It seems like there is nothing to put away, but on the other hand, every moment, they become the loser.

The judge looked up at the plaintiff's lawyer. This was a very subtle and meaningful action. He was telling the plaintiff's lawyer that you can object and I will support you.

This kind of statement is like some kind of unspoken rule. People outside the industry don't understand these rules and these little tricks. The plaintiff's lawyer should understand.

But what is somewhat surprising is that the plaintiff's lawyer did not raise any objections, as if... he seemed to support such a decision.

"Take a ten-minute break and we'll discuss whether we support the defendant's claim..."

The judge knocked his gavel and left through the side door with a group of people. They had to figure out what was going on at every moment.