Some time ago, Mr. Chen, the Wenzhou owner who had previously accused Tesla of "brake failure", issued a letter of apology on his personal account, admitting that he had fabricated "Tesla brake failure and automatic acceleration" and made an apology to Tesla. In the apology letter issued by the owner of Wenzhou in his personal account, he also revealed that when he carried out the above-mentioned acts, the "owner surnamed Feng" in Shanghai contacted him and introduced him to a platform. The platform arranged special lawyers for him and contracted all expenses.
Moreover, Ms. Henan car advocate and Mr. Han, the owner of Tianjin, also contacted him During this period, Ms. Zhang invited him to write a joint book on class action, but she was refused
After the release of this letter of apology, it immediately caused an uproar among netizens, because the letter of apology accurately "hit" three people with great influence in Tesla's rights protection, "the owner surnamed Feng in Shanghai", "Ms. Zhang on the roof of Anyang, Henan Province" and "Mr. Han, who has lost the lawsuit and was sentenced to" refund one for three ".
Tesla said that the discussion of the contents of the apology draft was formed in the witness of the judge. Finally, Chen (the owner of the party) confirmed all the contents and released them voluntarily and independently.
However, for this letter of apology, Ms. Zhang and Mr. Han also made clear their attitudes respectively. For untrue remarks, they asked Wenzhou car owners to make an apology immediately. Moreover, they also questioned the rationality of the letter of apology.
Ms. Zhang said: the plaintiff and defendant of the case are Tesla and Wenzhou car owners. The apology letter mentioned that others are outsiders. Why would the "apology letter" witnessed by the judge involve outsiders? Is this in Tesla's appeal? Should the judge judge judge Tesla's appeal**
Secondly, the judge should be clear that this "letter of apology" will be published on all public platforms and will have an impact on outsiders in the text. Has the judge verified the relevant facts of outsiders and whether it is rigorous?
At the same time, from a legal point of view, should we listen to both? The judge should also listen to the double reply in order to determine the final true situation? In addition, what is the situation when an outsider is enforced?
In addition, Han Chao, the owner of "refund one and compensate three", also said that he would consider the trial results of the court and seek judicial channels to safeguard personal rights and interests**
