Quality performance in court, victory in a legal dispute is impossible without independent thinking. In the work of an attorney, lawyer, this skill is extremely necessary. Therefore, even when a lawyer begins his studies at the university and even more so when he becomes an assistant or trainee lawyer requires its continuous development.
In the deeply developed independent thinking is one of the main features of strong lawyers, who build their position on the case, prepare a speech, speak, based not only on the provisions of the law and judicial practice. This is the ability, based on the individualities of each case, to formulate a set of arguments, to arrange them in a certain sequence, thus providing the strongest argumentation.
Often the best arguments do not come on their own, they are hidden in the details of the case, only hard work and analytical thinking can reveal them.
In complex cases, it is impossible to come to certain conclusions at once.
So on one case of our client – carrier, in which they tried to collect unjust enrichment from him in connection with the fact that he overestimated the distance in the transportation of passengers, depending on which determined the payment under the contract, initially formed the idea of a low prospect for him this case.
It was only in the process of reflection that a set of arguments was determined which enabled the court to form the conviction that:
- There can be no unjust enrichment if the route distance is provided for in the Order Order, which is an integral part of the Contract, without challenging the Contract itself;
- The plaintiff’s measurement of the distance does not confirm that the transportation was carried out exactly along this route, taking into account that the measurement was made neither on the day of the disputed transportation, the plaintiff has not proved the possibility of moving only along the streets along which the measurement was made, and taking into account that a longer route may be chosen to avoid traffic jams and road works;
- That the actual measured distance was used in the calculation and the time was based on the purchase order. That is, no time was measured when the distance was measured, whereas the payment under the contract was based on both the distance traveled and the travel time.
Without independent thinking, based on a deep understanding of the essence of the dispute, approach to this issue, not only from the legal, but also from the logical side, the need to take into account the individuality of the case, it was impossible to prepare well-founded convincing objections or make such a position as a whole, which allowed to achieve a result in favor of our principal in all court instances.