On-site picture of the "pillar ticket" provided by Ms. Li.
Ms. Li said that the second instance hearing date was changed from July 31 to August 2, and the case was not pronounced in court. The main point of dispute in the second trial was the pillars themselves. "We hope that the organizers can tell when they knew about the pillars, and we also hope that they can provide evidence to support the relevant remarks. We do not accept that the organizers were informed before the concert started." I just learned about the saying "there are pillars."
Nandu previously reported that in May 2023, many audience members reported that after buying "pillar tickets" at Liang Jingru's Shanghai concert, their view was blocked by the pillars around the stage. On November 17 of the same year, Ms. Li, who bought the "pillar ticket", told Nandu reporters that a total of nine audience members filed lawsuits against the concert organizer, Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Cultural Performing Arts Co., Ltd.
It is understood that the concert organizer has responded that it is only responsible for the implementation of Liang Jingru’s Shanghai concert, and the stage is not built by the company. During the ticket sales stage, the company did not know that the stage design would have four pillars.
On June 20 this year, the Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court publicly pronounced the first instance verdict on this case. The judgment showed that, 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 ticket, the seats had not been arranged, and the live stage had not been set up, so the defendant could not attend the event 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.
In addition, the defendant neither proactively informed the plaintiff in advance that his seat's view was blocked, giving the plaintiff full rights to know and make choices; nor did it make adequate plans to proactively change the plaintiff's seat on site to eliminate the adverse effects. Therefore, the services provided by the defendant during the performance of the contract were obviously defective, which constituted a breach of contract and should bear liability for breach of contract.
The court pointed out that the defendant should bear the breach of contract liability for price reduction and compensation. Regarding the refund ratio, a stepped refund ratio should also be adopted based on the ticket price. The court ordered the defendant to refund the plaintiff at the rates of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan per ticket.
html On July 29, Ms. Li told Nandu reporters that nine plaintiffs had filed an appeal. The reason why they decided to appeal was that first, the organizer had been trying to shirk or reduce its responsibility before and after the first-instance judgment, and second, it believed that the cost of infringing on consumer rights was too high. Low, the rights protection process is too difficult. "Now that we have become a case, we still hope to leave a positive impact on the market."Written by: Nandu reporter Feng Yiran
