In the courtroom, faced with the current situation, Su Bai remained silent.
The defendant had come very well prepared for this trial.
Leaving everything else aside, the evidence the defendant had prepared alone was enough.
With that evidence laid out before them, the defendant would hold an absolute advantage in this trial.
Their side did not have enough evidence to refute the other party, while the other party's evidence was clearly more substantial than what they had prepared.
The key point was this!
As things stood, the evidence they had presented in this trial was clearly just evidence of labeling, not actual contractual evidence.
To put it plainly.
As the plaintiff, they had submitted evidence provided by the third party, such as "Factoring Wealth Management," and had regarded it as principal-protected wealth management only because that was how the third party had displayed it.
The other party, however, relied on the agreement's contents to establish that it was non-principal-protected wealth management.
It was essentially like one side having a verbal agreement while the other had a signed contract in black and white.
Whom would the presiding judge listen to?
Which evidence would the presiding judge accept?
Obviously, the presiding judge would accept the evidence contained in the agreement.
Because, under the law, when purchasing wealth management products, the parties had to read the agreement and acknowledge that they bore their own risks.
As things stood, this trial would be difficult.
At the judges' bench, the presiding judge looked at Su Bai in the plaintiff's seats and asked:
"The defendant has now produced the relevant evidence. From that evidence, it is clear that, according to the agreement, the plaintiff purchased non-principal-protected wealth management."
"What does counsel for the plaintiff have to say about this?"
Su Bai took a breath and said,