8 On August 6, a Beijing Youth Daily reporter learned from the fans involved that on August 2, the high-profile "Liang Jingru Pillar Ticket" case had been heard in the second instance of the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, and the case had not yet been pronounced in court. The fan involved, Gu Jia (pseudonym), told a reporter from Beijing Youth Daily that they did not accept mediation and hoped that the organizer could explain clearly when they knew there were pillars at the scene.
Fans: I wish I knew when I knew there would be pillars
Organizer: I didn’t know there would be pillars blocking the view
Beijing Youth Daily reporter learned that in the second instance, the fans requested the second instance court to revoke the first instance verdict, refund the full amount of the tickets, and pay three times the penalty Sexual compensation, etc. The focus of the trial is whether the organizer knew that the stage involved in the case had a blocked view and did not inform the audience in advance. Whether the organizer's behavior constituted fraud, whether the audience's demand for the organizer to pay punitive damages had a legal basis; whether the organizer constituted a fundamental breach of contract. The tickets should therefore be refunded in full to the audience.
Gu Jia told a reporter from the Beijing Youth Daily that the second trial mainly focused on them explaining the reasons for the appeal and their thoughts and opinions. The judge also asked many relevant questions to both parties. The judge asked them if they would accept mediation, but they declined. Because the organizers have always emphasized that they did not know about the pillars and the stage was only set up before the performance, they had no time to inform consumers. Therefore, they still hope that the organizers can clarify when they knew there were pillars on site. "For us, the pillars at the concert itself are the focus of this controversy. The organizers have always emphasized that objective reasons such as time constraints prevent them from notifying consumers. However, if it is clear that the pillars will be set up a few months before the performance, then The so-called reason of 'too late' is no longer valid."
Gu Jia said that in addition to the Consumers Association, she also hopes that relevant administrative departments can manage and restrict this matter.
Regarding this case, Zhang Yuxia, the fan’s attorney, said that the second trial mainly focused on whether the defendant’s behavior was a flaw or a fundamental breach of contract, and whether it constituted fraud. The organizer should have known about the existence of pillars from the time of filing or when there were subsequent revisions. Then after knowing, they should have a more appropriate plan, including notifying consumers or other plans, such as on-site treatment plans, etc.
According to media reports, the organizer's attorney stated that the organizer had no idea at the time that there would be pillars blocking the view. Liang Jingru had not installed load-bearing pillars in many of her previous concerts, but this time in order to improve the performance, she later decided to add speakers, For lighting and other equipment, the total weight of the equipment exceeds the load-bearing capacity of the central ceiling, so columns are added for safety reasons.
Case Review
The organizer was sentenced in the first instance to refund the tickets in a stepped proportion
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. They sued the organizer, Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Cultural Performing Arts Co., Ltd., to court.
In the first instance, 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 venue ceiling safety standards. For safety reasons, stage corner columns were temporarily added. As a load-bearing device, it belongs to conventional stage design. 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 Minhang Court held that the defendant’s behavior was defective performance and constituted a breach of contract. The plaintiff's view was significantly blocked by the load-bearing pillars, 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 proactively informed the plaintiff in advance that his seat's view was blocked and gave the plaintiff full rights to know and make choices; nor did it formulate sufficient plans to 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 breach of contract liability for price reduction and compensation. Since the concert has ended and the defendant cannot continue to perform or take remedial measures, the plaintiff has the right to request a price reduction 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.
After the verdict of the first instance was pronounced, the audience appealed to the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court after consideration.
Related
China Consumers Association: Ticketing platforms should produce clear venue seating maps and mark seats that block the view
A reporter from Beijing Youth Daily noticed that the China Consumers Association recently released the "Analysis of Complaints Accepted by the National Consumers Association in the First Half of 2024". The report shows that since last year, the performance market has continued to be hot, and the number of complaints in related fields has also been at a high level. First, the rights and obligations of ticketing platforms and consumers are not equal. Second, the ticketing platform is not responsible for selling performance tickets and seats that obstruct the view. The ticketing platform did not clearly indicate that the corresponding seats were blocked when selling tickets. Consumers reported to the ticketing platform afterwards and requested a partial refund, but the ticketing platform refused to bear the corresponding responsibility. Third, consumers’ right to know when selecting seats blindly is not guaranteed. Consumers cannot know the specific seats when purchasing tickets. Some consumers reported that the seats purchased first were worse than those purchased later for the same price. Fourth, the ticketing platform changes seat prices at will. Fifth, there are many disputes over refunds.
For cases where consumers encountered serious obstructions at concerts, which affected their viewing experience, the China Consumers Association stated that ticketing platforms should produce clear venue seating maps and mark seats with obstructed views to protect consumers’ right to know and make choices. right. If the ticketing platform is unable to provide venue seating maps and mark blocked seats, consumers who purchased blocked seats should be compensated accordingly.
Text/Beijing Youth Daily reporter Li Tiezhu
editor/Ni Jianing
