The evidence exchange procedure or the court debate before the end of the trial found that fall, basic claim made by the parties is not clear enough, or the foundation of right of claim concurrence, or that the foundation of right of claim and the people's Court on the facts of the case are inconsistent, the judges may be the basis of claim right is not explicitly inform the parties, and urges it to make a clear choice. But through can clearly explain the basis of claim right, the people's court may explain the results as the basis of claim right, and the results to inform the parties, the parties do not raise any objections, as agreed to the. The party opposed or negative, should be allowed to determine the basis of claim right, otherwise, the people's court may turn down or reject to prosecute for unknown grounds.
For the foundation of right of claim is not clear, and not through the clear explanation of the basis of claim right, or the foundation of right of claim concurrence, the judges told and urges, within a specified time limit has not made a clear choice, the people's court may appeal on grounds of unknown to please turn down or reject the prosecution.

The lawyers as agents ad litem, lawyers have a responsibility to help the foundation of request right parties clear action.
　  Lawyer: determine the foundation of right of claim has great effect to the range, clear the parties request the allocation of the burden of proof, which is precondition of the procedure can be carried out smoothly-. In some cases, the only compensation or other performance requirements, but not explicitly put forward the request is based on contract, tort, or other claim basis. In this regard, the judge should be explained to the parties the basis of claim right is not clear, and urges it to make a clear choice. However, not all parties will be the judge's interpretation and make a clear choice. If the parties only a foundation of right of claim can be established, the court may hear to identify the cause of petition is the clear direct confirmation of v.. This is actually for the parties to explain the results, because the parties since it filed a lawsuit request, to illustrate its claim their legal rights, and when the appeal is only one cause of action can be established, shall be presumed based its appeal is the cause of action, unless the parties to the-Cause of action explicitly denied or refused. If the parties to the court to determine the cause of action that the negative or rejected, it should be self determined, otherwise, will be idle lack of foundation of right of claim and not by the courts or should be rejected the prosecution. This is the article-A list of-.
If the underlying claim concurrence of the parties, the judge also shall inform the requesting foundation in different alternative one for requests, the informed, parties still do not make a clear choice, the people's court may refuse to accept or reject the prosecution to claim and reason unknown grounds. This is the second case are listed in the first paragraph of this article.
The reason for this lies in: the impartial judges, avoid leaning to either side, is the inevitable requirement of procedure justice. The inescapable "claimed responsibility and burden of proof" in the proceedings, in accordance with the "Civil Procedure Law" article-Two hundred and eight article(Three)The provisions of item, the plaintiff must "have specific claims, facts, reasons," parties have an obligation to the judge that he indicted for what reason, the parties themselves not to perform such obligation, but by the court on behalf of their make sampling, is tantamount to asking the court to bear the legal obligation and responsibility for its. If the court instead of the parties made a choice, the judge in the fact it is not neutral position. Therefore, if the court determines the foundation of right of claim by explanation, can be directly determined; if not sure, should explain the basis of claim is not clear the truth to the parties, and the parties do not choose clear within the specified time limit, consequences, and not on behalf of clients to choose. (this blog information for research, analysis, exchange relevant legal cases, integration of legal resources of lawyers and legal purposes, welcome lovers made unique insights. Qiu Houmu: Shanghai practicing lawyers, mailbox:Lawyerqhm@sina.com )