Fans spent thousands of yuan to buy tickets for Leung Jingru's Shanghai concert, but when they arrived at the venue, they found that their view was blocked by pillars. After communication to no avail, nine fans sued the organizer, Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Cultural Performing Art

fans spent thousands of yuan to buy tickets for Liang Jingru's Shanghai concert, but when they arrived at the venue, they found that their view was blocked by pillars. After communication to no avail, nine fans sued the organizer, Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Cultural Performing Arts Co., Ltd., to the court. On June 20, the Shanghai Minhang District People's Court pronounced its verdict on the case. The court ordered the defendant to refund the plaintiff's ticket price in a stepped refund ratio based on the single fare of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan.

case

bought "pillar tickets" for the concert. 9 viewers sued

. On May 20 and 21, 2023, the 2023 Liang Jingru World Tour Concert was held in Shanghai. Later, many concertgoers reported that when they arrived at the scene, they found that their view was blocked by the pillars around the stage. "Looking at the singer became looking at the pillars," which seriously affected the viewing experience. The matter sparked widespread discussion at the time. After failing to reach an agreement with the organizer on the compensation issue, nine viewers chose to protect their rights and interests through legal means. Among the 9 spectators, 6 were for the May 20th show and 3 were for the May 21st show. During the trial of

, 9 viewers believed that the defendant did not inform in advance that the seats it sold had serious defects that blocked the line of sight, which constituted fraud on consumers and violated consumers' right to choose and know. Not only should the plaintiff be refunded the ticket price , should also pay punitive damages and bear the responsibility of "refund one and compensate three".

The defendant believed that 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, causing the load-bearing to exceed the safety standards of the venue ceiling. For safety reasons, stage corner columns were temporarily added as load-bearing. Belongs to conventional stage design. The plaintiff's evidence cannot prove that his view was blocked, and 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.

The court ruled

The defendant refunded the plaintiff’s ticket price in a stepped refund ratio

The Minhang court held that the defendant’s selling of “pillar tickets” did not constitute fraud. 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 had no way of knowing the plaintiff at that time The seats were blocked, and the plaintiff could not have purchased the tickets 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.

The defendant's behavior was 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. 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.

The defendant should bear the liability for breach of contract by reducing the price and refunding 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.

Audiences

Be brave to defend your rights when encountering similar situations. Organizers should pay attention to consumer demands

Among the 9 viewers who filed the lawsuit this time, Gu Jia (pseudonym) is a fan of Liang Jingru for 20 years. She was also present in the courtroom for today's sentencing.

Gu Jia said that at that time, she spent 1,299 yuan to buy a concert ticket, but after arriving at the venue, she found that it was a "pillar ticket" and her viewing experience was seriously affected. What followed was a long rights protection process. She remembered that she went to the Consumer Protection Committee twice because of this matter, but the organizer's attitude was that they had nothing to do and were only willing to compensate them 200 yuan for their JD.com card.

After the communication failed, Gu Jia and other nine people finally chose to sue. Regarding the verdict, Gu Jia said that "pillar tickets" are a great injustice to consumers. The court's verdict is of great significance. She hopes that this verdict can serve as an example for others to encounter if they encounter it. When you encounter similar situations, you know how to deal with them. We also hope that this case will allow concert organizers to pay attention to consumers and not end up in litigation like this case. "As a consumer, you must dare to defend your rights when encountering similar situations. As an organizer, you must pay attention to the demands of consumers."

Gu Jia also suggested that if you find a pillar ticket at the scene, you should take photos of yourself and your seat as soon as possible, and If the situation is blocked, then videotape the entire process and find relevant staff to find a solution.

The attorney

hopes that the organizer will open a corresponding special line. The "pillar ticket" problem can be completely solved

A reporter from Beijing Youth Daily learned that the attorney for the plaintiff audience is Zhang Yuxia, a public interest lawyer of the Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Commission.

html On June 20, Zhang Yuxia told a reporter from the Beijing Youth Daily that she participated in the entire process of defending the rights of the parties involved. The process of this case was relatively difficult, and it took more than a year from filing to mediation to court hearing to the final result. When the Consumer Protection Commission intervened in the negotiation, the mediation plan proposed by the defendant at the beginning was unreasonable in the eyes of consumers. It initially promised a JD card of 200 yuan per person, regardless of the fare amount. For consumers, some people are unwilling to use litigation to solve problems, and some people do not want to waste time and energy. In the end, if their demands are not met, they will let it go.

Zhang Yuxia said that at that time, consumers and organizers had disputes about whether "pillar tickets" were a breach of contract and what the standards for breach of contract were. "We hope that this standard can be established through the court's decision." When buying tickets, the organizer did not tell consumers about this situation, saying that they did not know about it, or giving some other reasons, such as the presence of pillars, which did not affect consumers' viewing. Concert, this is not a fundamental impact, so the organizer does not consider it to be a breach of contract. Due to the large dispute between the two parties, they could not reach a solution during the initial mediation because there were no guidelines, clear legal provisions, and no corresponding precedents.The current judgment qualifies the situation of pillar tickets. The court believes that it constitutes defective performance of the contract and gives different proportions of compensation amounts for different ticket prices. If the first-instance judgment finally takes effect, this case can be used as a guide. In the early mediation of similar cases in the future, the identification standards and compensation standards in this judgment can be referred to to form a guideline for disputes. This can reduce the number of court cases to a certain extent. , reduce the cost of consumer rights protection.

Zhang Yuxia told a reporter from Beijing Youth Daily that during the litigation process, she also saw some improvements, including that some concerts did not sell "pillar tickets" or made notes on "pillar tickets", which gave consumers the right to know. On the basis of the right to know, there is the right to choose. "Consumers can choose to buy or not buy, but the organizer cannot deprive consumers of their right to know."

For consumers, Zhang Yuxia said that if they encounter similar situations where their rights and interests are damaged, , you can directly negotiate with the organizer. If the negotiation fails, you can turn to the Consumer Protection Commission. In the end, if you cannot reach an agreement, you can go through litigation. "The process of our case is a bit difficult. It takes a long time from filing to the final judgment, but if there is another case like this in the future, I believe it will not be that long."

Zhang Yuxia said that for the organizer, receiving consumers After making a complaint, you must face up to the problem. Because the platform’s negligence has reduced the consumer’s experience, you must be responsible for handling the aftermath. “We hope that the organizer can open a corresponding hotline to provide similar consumers with a channel to solve the problem. Don’t let every consumer end up with it.” Use litigation to protect your own rights and interests.”

In Zhang Yuxia’s view, the problem of “pillar tickets” can be completely solved. In essence, it is a matter of the right to know. The organizer only needs to inform them, and they must put themselves in the consumer’s shoes. Think, "Consumers may not know it when they buy tickets. This is beyond their scope of knowledge, but the organizer should know it and should know it, and then give consumers the right to choose."

Article / Beijing Youth Daily reporter Li Tiezhu