Moreover, Ms. Zhang Zhong from Henan and Mr. Han, the owner of Tianjin, also contacted him;During the period, Ms. Zhang invited him to write a joint book class action, but she refused.
After the letter of apology was released, it immediately caused an uproar among netizens, because the letter of apology accurately “struck” three people who are currently influential in Tesla’s rights protection, “Shanghai Feng car owner”, “Henan Anyang car roof rights protection Zhang” Madam” and “Mr. Han, who has lost the case and was sentenced to ‘refund one for three'”.
Tesla said that the discussion of the content of the apology was formed under the witness of the judge, and finally Chen (the owner of the car) confirmed all the content himself and released it voluntarily and voluntarily.
But for this letter of apology, Ms. Zhang and Mr. Han also made clear their attitudes, and demanded that Wenzhou car owners immediately apologize for their false remarks. They also questioned the legitimacy of the apology letter.
Ms. Zhang said: The plaintiff and the defendant in the case are the owners of Tesla and Wenzhou.The apology letter mentions that other people are outsiders. Why does the “apology letter” witnessed by the judge involve outsiders? Is this among Tesla’s demands? Even if Tesla makes a claim, should the judge rule it?
Secondly, the judge should be clear that this “apology letter” will be published on all public platforms and will affect the outsiders in the text. Has the judge verified the relevant facts of the outsiders, and is it rigorous?
At the same time, from a legal point of view, should both listen and be clear? The judge should also hear the double defense to determine the final true situation? In addition, what is the situation of the person outside the case being enforced?
also,Han Chao, the owner of the “refund one and three compensation” car, also said that he will consider the court’s trial results and seek judicial channels to protect his personal rights and interests.
