If You're So Good, Take Them Home! This Mediator Is Way Too Tough

It is best for the author not to let the protagonist say too many swear words or hit people. I read that another merchant leader was like this, and I was speechless. I was thinking that if I was the merchant who was beaten and scolded, I would have to sue the protagonist. Even if I was in prison, I would still sue him. I have the right to sue. As long as my political rights are not deprived, I have to sue the protagonist and get him to lose his official position, maybe even in a prison cell.

I think the logic doesn't make sense. You can't just assume that it's the bank's problem just because the bank manager has a bad attitude! Could it be someone else pretending to be the deceased's money? I haven't investigated it carefully, and with that kind of attitude, although it is indeed the bank's problem in the end, I can only say that the logic is really ordinary.

There is no necessary connection between them and they are not equal. Although it is quite ethical, it is illegal.

No, that's the end of the bank manager's matter. It's outrageous for you to call this mediation. Maybe I misunderstood it. I feel that the manager didn't do anything wrong. Why did it become his fault directly? I was fascinated by this plot. No offense intended, just curious and my personal opinion

Don't listen to what people on the Internet say. In that case, Peng Yu really hit the old lady. The evidence of the first trial has been judged to be that Peng Yu hit the old lady. Before the second trial, Peng Yu approached the old lady to reach a private settlement and reached an agreement that the whole incident was not allowed to be published online. Years later, Pengyu publicly admitted that he had indeed hit the old lady.

There is no basis for it. It all depends on your own ideas. You can enjoy it however you want. For example, if a truck is empty and overloaded, you ask the driver to pay, and then ask the driver to ask for the value of the goods. This is clearly a fishing for law enforcement. Another example is that a deceased person is given a loan, and the death certificate and loan contract are not read. The judgment is purely based on the verbal statements of both parties. It is suggested that the author can appropriately quote the law instead of judging by his own thinking. Everyone has his own thinking. If law enforcement officers rely on their own thinking to distinguish right from wrong, then what are the needs of so many laws?

I am here and am incapacitated. I suggest that I call my seven aunts, eight aunts, and all my relatives. The free insurance will be discussed later, and all heirs must be present before it can be refunded. Call for more people, invite all the mourners to come and cheer, and then find the media to expose this special surrender.

The plot about the fine for empty trucks and overloading is also outrageous. If the person in charge really files a lawsuit and asks you where the 59 tons of oil came from, what do you want the driver to say? The person in charge will be fined for dereliction of duty or laid off, but the driver is going to get in.

This book would be much more reasonable if some legal explanations were added. After reading more than a dozen chapters, the protagonist just decides whatever he says. There is no basis for it.

I saw the video several times, but I was not there and my name was signed. Some don't know they were signed yet