Chapter 1011: Chapter 327: Personal Cases Prove Nothing_2
Qiangsheng Company conducted its defense: “First, Qiangsheng Company did not reach a monopoly agreent with Xinda Company to restrict the resale prices of goods to third parties, and the evidence from Tong Yunyu cannot prove that such an agreent was reached between the two parties.”
“Second, various distributors of Qiangsheng Company, including Xinda Company, set their prices independently. The pricing among different distributors, as well as the pricing of the sa distributor for different custors, varies and differs from the guideline prices…”
General Manager Liu’s defense was quite straightforward.
“Xinda Automobile Company did not reach a monopoly agreent with Qiangsheng Company.”
Just that sentence, anyway, this ti they’re relying on big support.
After listening, Shen Jiacheng imdiately spoke: “Now we enter the evidence presentation and cross-examination phase, the plaintiff shall present evidence.”
Your statent is your claim, and presenting evidence is the process of proving your claim with proof.
“Evidence one, the dealership authorization agreent between Qiangsheng Company and Xinda Automobile Company, proving that Xinda Automobile Company is one of Qiangsheng Company’s distributors in Handong Province.”
“Evidence two, the vertical monopoly penalties issued by Modu City’s Price Bureau between Qiangsheng Company and distributors in Handong Province, proving the existence of vertical monopoly behaviors between Qiangsheng Company and distributors in Handong Province.”
“Evidence three, the sales contract between Tong Yunyu and Xinda Automobile Company, proving a vehicle sales transaction between the two parties.”
“Evidence four, the car purchase invoice, proving that the car purchase price at the ti was 386,700 yuan…”
“Evidence five…”
Evidence is indeed very cumberso; basically, every item you claim needs evidence to prove it.
Many pieces of evidence that seem unnecessary are actually required in court.
Old Tang completed presenting evidence, and then it was Qiangsheng Company’s turn to cross-examine.
The legal director quickly said: “The legality, objectivity, and relevance of evidence one are acknowledged; the legality and objectivity of evidence two are acknowledged, but its relevance is not.”
“The standards of administrative penalties do not coincide with those of civil litigation; in civil litigation, whether parties executed a minimum price is a key factor.”
“The legality, objectivity, and relevance of evidence three are all acknowledged…”
After cross-examination, next is the defendant’s turn to present evidence.
“Evidence one, five car sale invoices from Xinda Automobile Company before the penalty, along with multiple invoices from other distributors in Jingzhou, all priced below the minimum price in the penalty decision, proving that Qiangsheng Company and Handong Province distributors, including Xinda Automobile Company, did not implent a minimum resale price restriction to third parties…”
“Evidence two, records of guiding prices issued by Qiangsheng Company over four years show that guiding prices have decreased annually; in the second year of the alleged monopoly behavior, guiding prices had already dropped below the agreed minimum price, similarly proving that Qiangsheng Company and Xinda Automobile Company did not implent a monopoly agreent…”
“Evidence three, in the letter of administrative punishnt, the bare car inquiry prices provided by Qiangsheng Company in various Jingzhou stores were all below the limited prices, proving that Qiangsheng Company’s set prices did not compulsorily bind major stores.”
Out of over twenty pieces of evidence, there aren’t many of great value.
The evidence presentation took half a day, and Old Tang imdiately began the cross-examination.
“The objectivity and legality of evidence one are acknowledged, but its relevance is not; Xinda Automobile Company’s sales volu of just five cars over two years is illogical, just like the invoices from other distributors.”
This type of evidence is typically an attempt to prove an entire fact with a single piece of evidence.
Five cars sold in two years by Xinda Automobile? That’s a joke.
The prices of these five cars cannot explain anything, and the sa goes for those invoices from other distributors. Jingzhou, after all, is the capital city of Handong Province.
“Legality of evidence two is acknowledged, but its objectivity and relevance are not. It is a record issued by Qiangsheng Company itself and is not an original. Moreover, according to the penalty decision, Qiangsheng Company set its minimum prices through dynamic market analysis via a terminal, unrelated to guiding prices.”
In layman’s terms, your guiding price is just for others to see. The root of monopoly behavior is that you set the minimum prices through that terminal and hired third parties for undercover investigations.
Then you would conduct interviews, impose fines, etc., on stores pricing below the guideline price, thus engaging in monopolistic activities.
“The legality of evidence three is acknowledged, but not its objectivity and relevance; the inquiry price content was provided by Qiangsheng Company itself, and there’s no connection between the inquiry prices and the monopolistic minimum prices.”
“Evidence four…”
The legal director listened to the cross-examination, showing no change in expression. In a trial, just listening to one side’s statent can make their points seem quite reasonable.
However, one must consider the content of both parties together.
Completion of evidence presentation and cross-examination leads to the courtroom debate stage.
The central disputes between parties are, first, whether Qiangsheng Company’s pricing was enforceable, aning whether the monopoly agreent was indeed executed, and second, whether the standards between administrative penalties and civil litigation differ.
The legal director looked at Old Tang across the room and said: “The plaintiff’s evidence fails to fully prove that the monopoly agreent was executed; on the contrary, our evidence precisely proves that the so-called minimum price didn’t compulsorily bind the distributors.”
“Did the plaintiff not see that so many distributor car sale prices were below the minimum price stated in the administrative penalty letter?”
Reviews
All reviews (0)