fans spent thousands of yuan to buy tickets for Liang Jingru's Shanghai concert, but when they arrived, they found that their view was blocked by pillars, making them look at the singer instead of looking at the pillars. Nine fans sued the organizer, Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Cultural Performing Arts Co., Ltd. On June 20, these nine service contract dispute cases were pronounced in the first instance at the Meilong People's Court of Shanghai Minhang District People's Court (hereinafter referred to as "Shanghai Minhang Court").
Consumers complained about "pillar tickets". Picture source: Respondent
There are 9 plaintiffs in this series of cases. They are all audience members of Liang Jingru’s concert on May 20 or 21, 2023. Because the view was blocked by load-bearing pillars almost throughout the concert, and during and after the incident, The organizers failed to reach an agreement on the issue of compensation, and they took the concert organizer Shanghai Magic Cube Pan-Culture Performing Arts Co., Ltd. to court. A civil complaint shows that a plaintiff's request is to request the court to order the defendant to return the plaintiff's concert ticket price of 1,299 yuan, and to order the defendant to pay the plaintiff a total of 3,897 yuan in punitive damages (i.e., "refund one and compensate three"). ); the defendant was ordered to bear the litigation costs of this case.
On May 16, 2023, the plaintiff purchased a ticket for the "2023 When We Talk About Love-Liang Jingru World Tour Concert Shanghai Station" hosted by the defendant, paying 1,299 yuan. The concert was held at the Mercedes-Benz Arena in Pudong New Area, and the plaintiff’s ticket seat number was 3 seats in rows 2 of stand 219 on the second floor. On the day of the concert on May 20, 2023, after entering the venue, the plaintiff discovered that there were four pillars at the four corners of the stage, causing the position where he was sitting to be located in an area blocked from view. During almost the whole concert, the plaintiff was unable to see the singer Liang Jingru herself because of the obstruction of the stage pillars.
The plaintiff believes that the defendant did not inform it in advance that the seat location sold by it had serious defects that blocked the line of sight, which constituted fraud on consumers and violated consumers' right to know. The defendant should bear the breach of contract liability to compensate the plaintiff for losses, return the ticket money to the plaintiff, and pay punitive damages.
On November 15, 2023, the case was heard in the first instance of the People's Court of Minhang District, Shanghai.
During the trial, Zhang Yuxia, the plaintiff’s attorney and lawyer from Shanghai Shenhao Law Firm, said that the plaintiff believed that the defendant should bear liability for breach of contract based on the contract dispute; at the same time, during the performance of the contract, the defendant violated the plaintiff’s right to know.
Zhang Yuxia said that before the concert started, the site layout was completed by the defendant, and the plaintiff had no way of knowing that there were pillars and obstructions at the concert site. If he knew it, the plaintiff could have chosen another location with the same price, or chosen another city or other venue. In this case, the ticket purchased by the plaintiff was expensive. "Should have foreseen" should be the defendant's responsibility. The defendant should have known that this would cause infringement to the plaintiff when he arranged the scene. However, the defendant did not clearly inform him when selling tickets, which violated the defendant's right to know. The defendant’s attorney stated that he disagreed with all of the plaintiff’s claims.
The defendant’s attorney stated that, first, the plaintiff’s evidence could not prove that his view was seriously blocked to the point where it would affect his enjoyment of the performance, so that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved to the point where the full ticket price needed to be refunded. Second, the viewing experience of a concert is not entirely determined by sight. The live performance is an organic combination of multiple factors such as sound effects, lighting, programs, performance content, singer's performance status, on-site atmosphere, and the interaction between fans and singers. Therefore, just because there is a pillar in sight, it does not mean that the organizer is in breach of contract. Third, the defendant never made it clear in the promotional materials for the performance that there were no pillars on the stage or that any view of the audience would not be blocked. The purpose of adding load-bearing columns this time is for safety. Fourth, the defendant had taken measures at the scene to change seats or refund tickets and leave the venue for spectators who raised objections.The plaintiff in this lawsuit neither raised any objection at the scene nor left the show midway, but chose to watch the performance in its entirety. Therefore, the contract involved in the case has been fulfilled. The defendant believes that the plaintiff has no contractual basis or legal basis for requesting a refund. Fifth, the defendant has already proposed a solution to many viewers, including the plaintiff, through the mediation of relevant agencies, that is, compensation of 200 yuan in JD cards. This solution was accepted by about 100 viewers.
The defendant’s attorney believes that the defendant did not commit fraud or intentional fraud. The plaintiff was not deceived or misled by the defendant into purchasing tickets to watch the performance. Moreover, the plaintiff did not ask for withdrawal or refund during the entire performance, which is enough to show that the plaintiff also believes that The services provided by the defendant at that time were in compliance with the agreement, so the defendant requested the court to dismiss all the plaintiff's claims.
On June 20, 2024, the court made a first-instance judgment on this case.
Shanghai Minhang Court stated that the focus of the dispute in this case mainly lies in three aspects: 1. Whether the defendant has a performance defect that blocks the plaintiff’s view; 2. Whether the defendant’s failure to promptly inform the plaintiff of the defect in performance constitutes fraud; 3. If it does not constitutes fraud, whether the defendant has breached the contract and what liability it bears for breach of contract.
Regarding the dispute over whether the defendant had a performance defect that caused the plaintiff’s view to be blocked, the court held that the plaintiff provided photos and videos of the scene, which showed that the view from the position where the shooting was taken was indeed blocked by the load-bearing pillars. During the court hearing, the authenticity of the above-mentioned photos and videos was confirmed through verification in court. The shooting time information and geographical location information displayed were consistent with the time and place of the concert. Combined with the concert's seat distribution map, the area where the real-name tickets purchased by the plaintiff was indeed within the area where the line of sight was blocked by the stage's load-bearing columns. Therefore, the plaintiff has fulfilled its burden of proof. Although the defendant objected to the fact of obstruction, he did not provide sufficient evidence to refute it during the trial.
In summary, the court confirmed the fact that the plaintiff’s view was blocked.
Regarding the dispute over whether the defendant's failure to promptly notify the plaintiff of defects in performance constituted fraud, the court held that fraud refers to intentionally informing false information or the party with the obligation to inform intentionally conceals the true information, causing the party to make a wrong expression of intention based on a misunderstanding. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant should bear the burden of proof for intentional fraud, and the standard of proof for fraud, according to the relevant provisions of the judicial interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, must be sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt.
In this case, on the one hand, from the perspective of the plaintiff’s evidence, regarding this fact, the plaintiff only provided communication records between other consumers and the customer service of the ticket purchasing platform, not communication records between the plaintiff and the defendant, so the records even Even if it is true, it is difficult to meet the above standard of proof. On the other hand, it can be inferred from the objective circumstances that before the plaintiff purchased the ticket, the defendant did not make a promise in any promotional materials to provide unobstructed viewing, and did not intentionally inform false information. When the plaintiff purchased the tickets, he only purchased pre-sale tickets for the corresponding area and was not assigned a specific seat number. In addition, the stage construction at the scene had not yet been completed, so it was impossible for the defendant to know the plaintiff’s seat when he purchased the tickets. Be obscured and make false statements.
In addition, based on common sense, it is an obvious fact that whether the line of sight is blocked by the pillars, and the defendant has no need to conceal it. 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, the Shanghai station was the first stop of the tour and there had been no feedback from the audience before. As a result, the defendant had no idea about the degree of obstruction and the possibility that the audience would be blocked. response was grossly underestimated. Although the defendant had a plan to change seats, the staff arranged were seriously insufficient and could not meet the needs of all affected spectators at the scene. It is more consistent with objective reality that the defendant was negligent.
Therefore, the available evidence is insufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed fraud.
Regarding the dispute over whether the defendant breached the contract and what kind of liability it bore, the court held that the plaintiff’s view was significantly blocked by the load-bearing columns, especially the lifting platform at the center of the stage, which was originally the main stage for singers’ performances, but was the most obstructed. serious.It is true that due to the limitations of the stage conditions, it is impossible for the audience's line of sight to be blind throughout the whole process, but the obstruction situation has obviously exceeded the foreseeable range of the plaintiff, resulting in the viewing experience not meeting the general psychological expectations of ordinary viewers. Although the defendant claimed that the plaintiff could watch the singer's performance through the big screen, the big screens were set up in front of the stage, and the plaintiff's seat was diagonal to the stage, so the plaintiff had a poor experience watching the big screen from the side. What's more, the plaintiff's experience of watching the concert is not only the live viewing, but also the recording and sharing of the scene, etc. This is obviously something that the plaintiff cannot make up for simply watching on a big screen. In this case, the defendant neither proactively informed the plaintiff in advance that the view of his seat was blocked and gave the plaintiff full rights to know and make choices, nor did it make sufficient 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 did not comply with the agreement between the parties and contained obvious flaws, which constituted a breach of contract and should bear liability for breach of contract.
The audience's experience of the concert is multi-faceted, not just watching, but also listening, feeling, interacting, etc. Therefore, even if the plaintiff’s viewing experience is unsatisfactory, it is not enough to conclude that the defendant has constituted a fundamental breach of contract. At the same time, because the plaintiff did not withdraw on the spot and refused the defendant’s defective performance, the court said it was 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 can ask for a reduction in the price, that is, ask the defendant to refund part of the ticket price.
As for the refund ratio, the Shanghai Minhang Court held that it should be determined based on the impact of the defendant’s defective performance on the audience. Due to individual differences and the subjective feelings of each audience, the impact cannot be accurately judged. But what is certain is that compared to those with outside tickets, those with in-field tickets have higher expectations for the concert, especially the viewing experience, and have a lower obligation to tolerate defects; while the load-bearing pillars have higher expectations for the concert, especially for the viewing experience. It is closer, resulting in a larger area of obstruction. Whether it is from the direct impact on sight or the indirect impact on emotions, the impact of the defendant's performance defects on the audience with in-field tickets is greater than that of out-field tickets. audience.
Therefore, in terms of refund ratio, a stepped refund ratio should also be adopted based on different ticket prices. That is, the refund ratio for infield tickets closer to the stage should be higher than that for outfield tickets far away from the stage. For example, for the plaintiff who paid 1,299 yuan for the ticket, the defendant determined that the amount of the ticket that should be refunded was 910 yuan, which was approximately 70% of the original ticket price. In summary, the first-instance court ruled that the defendant should refund the tickets to the nine plaintiffs based on the single ticket price of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan in a stepped refund ratio.
The Shanghai Minhang Court stated that as a professional performing arts company, the defendant should not neglect the improvement of service levels while striving to improve the "hardware" level of the concert. If there are indeed insurmountable performance obstacles during the performance of the contract, a sufficient and effective plan should be formulated to minimize the impact and improve the audience's perception and satisfaction through timely notification and sincere follow-up. Only in this way can we better promote the healthy development of the performing arts market and better meet the cultural needs of the people.
source | The Paper
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-