这部电影，可以让我们找到答案

这部电影，可以让我们找到答案

結果 (越南文) 1:

Bộ phim này cho phép chúng tôi tìm câu trả lời

結果 (越南文) 2:

A Mary Carter agreement exists when the settling defendant retains a financial stake in the plaintiff's recovery and remains a party at the trial of the case.
This creates a tremendous incentive for the settling defendant to ensure that the plaintiff succeeds in obtaining a sizable recovery, and thus motivates the defendant to assist greatly in the plaintiff's presentation of the case (as occurred here). Indeed, Mary Carter agreements generally, but not always, contain a clause requiring the settling defendant to participate in the trial on the plaintiff's behalf.
Mary Carter agreements not only allow plaintiffs to buy support for their case, they also motivate more culpable defendants to "make a 'good deal' [and thus] end up paying little or nothing in damages."
The Mary Carter agreement is simply an unwise and champertous device that has failed to achieve its intended purpose. Mary Carter agreements essentially champertous because settling defendant retains financial interest in plaintiff's success against non-settling defendant.
As a matter of public policy, this Court favors settlements, but we do not favor partial settlements that promote rather than discourage further litigation. And we do not favor settlement arrangements that skew the trial process, mislead the jury, promote unethical collusion among nominal adversaries, and create the likelihood that a less culpable defendant will be hit with the full judgment. The bottom line is that our public policy favoring fair trials outweighs our public policy favoring partial settlements.

結果 (越南文) 3:

Bộ phim này, chúng ta có thể tìm câu trả lời.