Are lawyers willing to mediate or prosecute?

Everyone has many opinions. I said a little mentioned-the process of negotiation is also the process of obtaining evidence. There are also lawsuits, mainly playing evidence.

I remember a question I read in Zhihu. He described the conversation with the judge in court. The conclusion was that the judge didn't understand the law and always asked some inappropriate questions. But he thought that the judge didn't care about the most important legal elements, so he was very disgusted with the judge's questions and never answered them directly.

He said his case was a product liability dispute, and the products he bought from the merchants had quality problems.

I looked at what he thought was irrelevant, mainly because the judge asked him about the process of communication with the defendant, such as when he communicated with the defendant and how the defendant replied.

Frankly speaking, these questions are really out of tune. Let me try this case, and I will also take pains to ask both parties about the communication details of quality problems.

There is a simple reason. Since the plaintiff claims that the product has quality problems, it must prove it. In judicial practice, there are several ways to prove product quality problems:

1, the product "self-exploded" has quality problems, such as explosion, burst and personal injury. In these cases, it can be judged by naked eyes or life experience that some products have quality problems.

The defendant admitted it himself. In some cases, the defendant will admit that the product has quality problems, so it will be easy for the plaintiff to prove it. The defendant's confession generally does not occur in the trial stage, but mainly in the negotiation stage before prosecution.

If you have experience in dealing with sales contract disputes, you will find that some plaintiffs will submit a large number of WeChat chat records, correspondence emails, goods debugging records, customer complaint materials and so on in order to prove that the defendant's goods have quality problems.

Among these evidences, there may be clues that the defendant believes that there are quality problems.

3. identification. Not mentioned here.

The case of bosom friend mentioned above is obviously not appraised and "blew itself up", so the judge should know the details of the negotiations between the two sides and then determine whether the defendant has retracted his confession. If Zhige doesn't answer the judge's question directly and the defendant doesn't appear in court, the case is likely to lose because it doesn't prove that the defendant's product has quality problems.

Having said that, you may understand that in some cases, if the evidence of the parties is relatively lacking, direct prosecution is not recommended. If you need to sue, it is recommended to negotiate with the defendant first. During the negotiation, the defendant may admit some facts or make some promises.

This negotiation process will become evidence in favor of the plaintiff in the future.

This is why when someone asks me whether I should sue immediately, I usually advise them to consult with the defendant in a small way (WeChat, audio recording, video recording, email, complaining to the competent authorities, etc.). ) first, instead of rushing to sue.