Page 233 - JLA-03

¥ÿ≈æ“À

The defendant alleges in the answer to the plaint that the

defendant delivered the goods of which the quality was in accordance
with the agreement agreed upon by both parties.

®”‡≈¬°≈à“«Õâ“ß„π§”„Àâ°“√«à“®”‡≈¬ àß¡Õ∫ ‘π§â“∑’Ë¡’§ÿ≥¿“æμ√ßμ“¡∑’Ë°”Àπ¥

‰«â„π —≠≠“∑’˧Ÿà —≠≠“∑—Èß ÕßΩÉ“¬‰¥âμ°≈ß°—π‰«â·≈â«

The accused denies all allegations that the public prosecutor

makes against him.
ºŸâμâÕßÀ“ªØ‘‡ ∏∫√√¥“¢âÕ°≈à“«À“∑—ÈßÀ¡¥∑’Ëæπ—°ß“πÕ—¬°“√‰¥â°≈à“«À“μπ

The forth discovery tool is the medical examination under Rule 35.

This permits a party to force someone to undergo a relevant examination by
an appropriate health care professional. For example, if P claims physical

injuries, D will probably want to have her doctor examine P. Rule 35 provides
significant protection for the person to be examined. A medical exam is

available only upon court order, and the order is not easy to get. The
discovering party must demonstrate that the condition to be examined - which

might be physical or mental - is relevant to the case and that there is çgood

causeé to order the exam.

‡§√◊ËÕß¡◊Õ‡æ◊ËÕ§âπæ∫§«“¡®√‘ߪ√–°“√∑’Ë ’ˉ¥â·°à °“√μ√«®∑“ß°“√·æ∑¬å
(medical examination) ¿“¬„μâ°Æ¢âÕ∑’Ë Ûı «‘∏’°“√π’ÈÕπÿ≠“μ„À⧟৫“¡ “¡“√∂∫—ߧ—∫

∫ÿ§§≈„¥∫ÿ§§≈Àπ÷Ëß„À⇢â“√—∫°“√μ√«®∑’ˇ°’ˬ«¢âÕß®“°ºŸâ∑’˪√–°Õ∫«‘™“™’æ·æ∑¬å μ—«Õ¬à“ß
‡™àπ À“° P Õâ“ß«à“‰¥â√—∫°“√∫“¥‡®Á∫∑“ß°“¬ D Õ“®μâÕß°“√∑’Ë®–„Àâ·æ∑¬å¢Õßμπμ√«® P

°Æ¢âÕ∑’Ë Ûı ‰¥â„À⧫“¡§ÿ⡧√Õß∑’Ë ”§—≠·°à∫ÿ§§≈∑’Ë®–μâÕ߇¢â“√—∫°“√μ√«®¥â«¬ °“√μ√«®∑“ß

°“√·æ∑¬åπ’È®–∑”‰¥â‡©æ“–‡¡◊ËÕ¡’§” —Ëß»“≈‡∑à“π—Èπ·≈–§” —Ëߥ—ß°≈à“«°Á‰¡à„™à®–‰¥â¡“‚¥¬ßà“¬
§Ÿà§«“¡∑’ËμâÕß°“√®–§âπÀ“§«“¡®√‘ßμâÕß· ¥ß„Àâ‡ÀÁπ∂÷ß ¿“«–∑’ËμâÕß°“√μ√«® Õ∫´÷ËßÕ“®®–

‡ªìπ ¿“«–∑“ß°“¬À√◊Õ∑“ß®‘μ°Á‰¥â∑’ˇ°’ˬ«¢âÕß°—∫§¥’·≈–· ¥ß„Àâ‡ÀÁπ∂÷ß ç‡ÀμÿÕ—π ¡§«√é
∑’Ë®–„À⻓≈¡’§” —Ëß„À⇢â“√—∫°“√μ√«®

°—𬓬π - ∏—𫓧¡ ÚıˆÚ 223