On the morning of August 2, the second instance of the "Liang Jingru Pillar Ticket" case was held in the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court. The verdict of the case was not announced in court.
Red Star News previously reported that on May 20 and May 21, 2023, the 2023 Liang Jingru World Tour Concert was held in Shanghai. After arriving, some audience members found that their view was blocked by the pillars around the stage. "Looking at the singer became looking at the pillars." . The audience tried to mediate with the concert organizer. After the failure, a total of 9 audience members filed a lawsuit against the organizer, Shanghai Magic Cube Pan-Cultural Performing Arts Co., Ltd.
▲The blocked photo of the concert provided by the plaintiff
On June 20 this year, the first instance of the case was pronounced. The court ruled that according to different ticket prices, a stepped refund ratio should be adopted, based on the single ticket price of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, 910 yuan. The plaintiff's ticket price will be refunded at a standard of RMB 10,000. The court held that confirming the fact that the line of sight was blocked was not enough to constitute fraud, and the existence of obvious flaws constituted a breach of contract. Later, seven viewers filed an appeal.
Reporters learned that the audience requested that the first-instance verdict be revoked and that the organizer be ordered to refund the full amount of tickets and pay triple punitive damages. The organizer said it recognized the first instance verdict.
The focus of the dispute in the second trial is: whether the organizer knew that the stage involved in the case was blocked and did not inform the audience in advance, whether the organizer's behavior constituted fraud, and whether the audience's demand for the organizer to pay punitive damages had a legal basis; the organizer Whether it constitutes a fundamental breach of contract and the ticket price should be fully refunded to the audience.
In the first-instance judgment, the court held that "the defendant (organizer) did not make a promise to have an unobstructed view in any promotional materials, and did not intentionally inform false information." The audience raised objections and believed that it is common sense to have an unobstructed view of the concert. Zhuzhu Occlusion has exceeded expectations. An audience member said that the concert generally focuses on three aspects: relatively close contact with the stars; the overall sound and light effects; and the atmosphere of the "fans" group. In the area blocked by pillars, in addition to limited vision, the audience's emotions and the atmosphere of the scene are also affected.
Zhang Yuxia, public interest lawyer of the Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Committee, who represents the audience, said that she hopes that the second trial can clarify more clearly where the organizer's responsibility lies, and when did the organizer know that there will be pillars for the concert and when they were set up? Zhu Zhu, when did he realize that there was an obstruction, "Whether its behavior constitutes fraud or not, this is determined by the court in accordance with the law, but we believe that consumers have the right to know all this, and this is actually the case for all consumers." One of the main reasons for the appellant to appeal. "
The attorney for the organizer said that in April 2023, the concert sold tickets through multiple ticketing agency platforms. At that time, the organizer had no idea that there would be pillars blocking the view. Before that, Liang Jingru has not installed load-bearing columns in many concerts, but this time in order to improve the performance, she later decided to add audio, lighting and other equipment. The total weight of the equipment exceeded the load-bearing capacity of the central ceiling, so columns were added for safety reasons; on May 17, the concert Tickets will be issued to determine the specific seats of the audience; on May 20, the concert will begin. The attorney for the organizer of
said that before the start of the performance, the organizer did not contact the audience in the area where the line of sight was blocked. The reason was that the preparations in the few days before the performance were tight and there was no time to contact the audience one by one. If all the audience were informed, it would not be targeted and may cause trouble at the scene. In case of shock, on-site disposal and subsequent remediation are more realistic. The organizers finally held an on-site meeting to formulate an emergency plan two days before the performance, that is, to replace audience members whose vision was blocked and who raised objections with box seats.
The audience’s attorney pointed out that the organizer had not submitted relevant design contracts, concert registration materials, stage design layout, company information and other material evidence regarding the statement about knowing the pillars and ticketing time. There was no third-party confirmation, only the organizer. Fang's unilateral statement, which was titled "post-court statement," called the court's handling of the incident "arrogant."
Regarding the statement of "arrogance", the organizer's attorney responded in court: If we sincerely accept this criticism, we will bear the liability for breach of contract as determined by the judicial authorities, and we should improve the shortcomings in the organization. However, as a large-scale event, the concert is relatively complex in all aspects. It’s complicated, and the organizers aren’t intentionally arrogant.
Red Star News Reporter Chen Xinyi
Editor Pan Li Editor-in-Chief Deng Haoguang
