▲The photo provided by the plaintiff with the view blocked
Red Star News previously reported that on November 15, 2023, the first instance hearing on the "pillar tickets" related to Liang Jingru's concert in Shanghai was held in the Meilong Court of the People's Court of Minhang District, Shanghai, with a total of 9 Two spectators filed separate lawsuits against the concert organizer, Shanghai Magic Cube Pan-Cultural Performing Arts Co., Ltd., and the court consolidated the 9 lawsuits. One of the spectators who brought the lawsuit by
showed a Red Star News reporter a photo of the view of the "pillar ticket". The photo showed that in the middle of the view was a hollow pillar, with the singer vaguely visible in the hollow. Some viewers pointed out that Liang Jingru mainly stood on the lifting platform when singing, which happened to be the area blocked by the pillars. In addition, in the seat distribution map displayed when purchasing tickets, the two diagonal lines formed by the four corners are basically blocked by pillars, but this is not marked on the page.
html On June 20, the judgment obtained by Red Star News showed that the focus of the dispute in this case mainly lies in three aspects: whether the defendant has a performance defect that blocks the plaintiff’s view; whether the defendant’s failure to promptly inform the plaintiff of the defect in performance constitutes fraud; if not constitutes fraud, whether the defendant has breached the contract and what liability it bears for breach of contract.The court ruled that the fact that the plaintiff claimed that the realization was blocked was confirmed. Regarding the issue of fraud, the court held that the defendant did not make a promise of unobstructed viewing in the promotional materials, and did not intentionally inform false information; when the plaintiff purchased the tickets, he was not assigned a specific seat ticket, and the on-site stage construction was not completed at that time. It is impossible for the defendant to know that the seats were blocked when the plaintiff purchased the tickets. The defendant's negligence is more consistent with the actual situation and is not enough to determine that the defendant committed fraud.
Regarding the impact of the blocked view, the court found that the blocked situation had exceeded the plaintiff's foreseeable range, resulting in the viewing experience not meeting half of the psychological expectations of ordinary viewers. The defendant neither proactively informed the plaintiff in advance that the view of the seat was blocked, nor failed to make adequate plans. According to the plan, if the services provided during the performance of the contract do not comply with the agreement between the parties, there are obvious flaws, which constitutes a breach of contract and the party shall bear liability for breach of contract. However, since the audience's experience of the concert is multi-faceted, not only watching, but also listening, feeling, interacting, etc., it is not sufficient to conclude that the defendant constituted a fundamental breach of contract, and the plaintiff did not leave the venue on the spot, making it difficult to support a full refund. ask.
As for the refund ratio, the court held that it should be determined based on the impact of the defendant’s defective performance on the audience. And performance defects have a greater impact on spectators who have infield tickets than those who have outfield tickets. According to different ticket prices, a stepped refund ratio is adopted. In-field tickets close to the stage should be higher than out-field tickets far away from the stage.
Red Star News Reporter Chen Xinyi
Editor Pan Li Editor-in-Chief Wei Kongming
