The Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court’s WeChat public account issued an article on the 20th to introduce the first-instance verdict of Liang Jingru’s concert “pillar ticket” case. The full text is as follows:
A concert is a live performance by a singer in front of the audience, using singing, modeling, stage layout, and light and shadow special effects. An audio-visual feast presented together. Consumers buy concert tickets at high prices just to catch a glimpse of their idols. Consumer Ni and others bought "pillar tickets" and "only heard their voices but not their faces" when watching the performance. The experience was greatly reduced, and they were dissatisfied with the mediation plan given by the entertainment company, so they filed a lawsuit in Minhang District. People's Court.
This morning (June 20), the Minhang District People’s Court made a public judgment on this case in the first instance: the defendant was ordered to refund the plaintiff’s ticket price based on a stepped refund ratio based on the single fare of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan.
Purchased tickets at high prices to chase stars but encountered "pillar tickets"
Consumers sued the court and requested "refund one and compensate three"
The plaintiff claimed: In April 2023, the plaintiff Ni and nine other people purchased Liang Jingru's Shanghai concert through a third-party sales platform Tickets for the event were priced at 699 yuan, 999 yuan, 1,299 yuan, etc., and the organizer was the defendant, a Shanghai performing arts company. The concert opened on May 20 and May 21, 2023. After the plaintiff and others entered the venue, they found that their view from the ticket position was blocked to varying degrees by the stage load-bearing columns, which seriously affected the viewing experience. After the concert, the plaintiff and others did not accept the relevant mediation plan, so they filed a lawsuit in court.
The plaintiff believes that the defendant did not inform in advance that the seats sold by it had serious defects that blocked the view, which defrauded consumers and violated their right to choose and know. Not only should the plaintiff return the ticket price, but also punitive measures should be taken. Compensation is the responsibility of "refund one and compensate three".
The defendant argued that it disagreed with all the plaintiff’s claims. First of all, the original stage design did not have load-bearing columns. In order to improve the performance, the producer added audio-visual equipment before the performance, which caused the load-bearing to exceed the venue ceiling safety standards. For safety reasons, stage corner columns were temporarily added as load-bearing columns, which is a conventional stage design. . Secondly, the plaintiff’s evidence cannot prove that his view was blocked. Even if it was blocked, it was not to the extent that the purpose of the contract could not be realized. Live performance is a combination of sound, light, color, stage, performance, live atmosphere, etc., among which the sense of live atmosphere is particularly important. The defendant has never made it clear in any promotional materials that the stage has no pillars or any viewing angles. The facilities and equipment at the performance site will inevitably block the audience's view to varying degrees in certain locations. Thirdly, the plaintiff in this case neither raised any objections on the spot nor left midway. The contract involved in the case has been fulfilled. The plaintiff’s request for a refund has no contractual basis or legal basis, and is also inconsistent with the principles of fairness and good faith. In summary, the defendant did not commit fraud intentionally or fraudulently. If the defendant must be held responsible, it would be negligence at best.
"Pillar Tickets" were sold and no timely remediation was done on site.
Consumers have the right to demand that merchants bear breach of contract liability for price reductions.
The People's Court of Minhang District combined the arguments of both parties and the evidence in the case. After trial, it held that:
1. The defendant sold " The behavior of "pillar ticket" does not constitute fraud. Fraud refers to intentionally informing false information or the party with the obligation to inform intentionally conceals the true information, causing the party to make a wrong expression of intention based on misunderstanding. In this case, judging from the objective situation, the defendant did not make a promise to watch without obstruction in any promotional materials, and did not intentionally inform false information; when the plaintiff purchased the tickets, the seats had not been arranged, and the live stage had not been set up, so the defendant could not watch at that time Knowing that the plaintiff's seat was blocked, the plaintiff could not have purchased the ticket due to being misled by the defendant. After the stage was set up, the defendant could indeed foresee that some of the audience would be blocked by the load-bearing columns. However, as the Shanghai station was the first stop of the tour, the defendant obviously seriously underestimated the degree of obstruction and the possible reaction of the audience. Although there were There was a plan to change seats, but the staff arranged were seriously insufficient and could not meet actual needs. The defendant's negligence was more consistent with objective reality.Therefore, the available evidence is insufficient to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant committed fraud.
2. The defendant's behavior was a defective performance and constituted a breach of contract. The plaintiff purchased tickets for Liang Jingru’s concert held by the defendant. The two parties established a service contract relationship and the defendant should fully perform its obligations. The plaintiff's view was significantly blocked by the load-bearing columns, which exceeded ordinary psychological expectations. Although the defendant claimed that the plaintiff could watch the singer's performance on the big screen, the big screen was set up in front of the stage, and the plaintiff's seat was diagonal to the stage, so the viewing effect was not good. The defendant neither took the initiative to inform the plaintiff in advance that the view of his seat was blocked and gave the plaintiff the full right to know and make a choice; nor did he formulate a sufficient plan and proactively change the plaintiff's seat on site to eliminate the adverse effects. In summary, the defendant's services provided during the performance of the contract were obviously defective, which constituted a breach of contract and should bear liability for breach of contract.
3. The defendant should bear the breach of contract liability for price reduction and compensation. Because the audience's experience of the concert is multi-faceted, it is not just watching, but also listening, feeling, interacting, etc. Therefore, although the plaintiff and others had an unsatisfactory experience watching the whole concert, it was not enough to conclude that the defendant had constituted a fundamental breach of contract. In addition, the plaintiff did not leave the concert early. Therefore, the court found it difficult to support the plaintiff’s request for a full refund from the defendant. . Since the concert has ended and the defendant cannot continue to perform or take remedial measures, the plaintiff has the right to request a reduction in the price and the defendant should refund part of the ticket price.
Regarding the refund ratio, the court held that it should be determined based on the impact of the defendant’s defective performance on the audience. The specific decision can be made based on factors such as the level of consumers' expectations for the concert carried by different ticket prices and the degree of occlusion of the specific audience by the load-bearing columns. According to the psychology of general consumers, audiences who purchase in-field tickets have relatively higher expectations for close contact and interaction with idols during concerts, and therefore have a lower obligation to tolerate defects. Therefore, the refund ratio should also be combined with the ticket price and adopt a stepped refund ratio. Therefore, based on the actual situation of the plaintiff in this case, the court ordered the defendant to refund the plaintiff at the rates of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan per ticket.
