A picture of the "pillar ticket" scene provided by the audience participating in the lawsuit.
Because they bought "pillar tickets" at Liang Jingru's concert, nine audience members sued the organizer Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Culture Performing Arts Co., Ltd. to the court, and the matter ushered in new progress. On June 20, Nandu reporters learned from the Shanghai Minhang District People's Court that the court made a public judgment on the case in the first instance and ordered the defendant to refund the plaintiff's ticket price based on a stepped refund ratio based on the single fare of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan. . Nandu previously reported that Ms. Li, an audience member who participated in the lawsuit, told Nandu reporters, "We want to find out whether the organizer has violated our legitimate rights and interests."
The line of sight was blocked to varying degrees by the stage's load-bearing pillars. Consumers demanded "refund one and compensate three"
"Shanghai Minhang Court" public account introduced the case. The plaintiff claimed that in April 2023, plaintiff Ni and nine other people purchased tickets for Liang Jingru’s Shanghai concert through a third-party sales platform, with ticket prices of 699 yuan, 999 yuan, 1,299 yuan, etc. respectively. The concert opened on May 20 and May 21, 2023. After the plaintiff and others entered the venue, they found that their view from the ticket position was blocked to varying degrees by the stage load-bearing columns, which seriously affected the viewing experience. After the concert, the plaintiff and others did not accept the relevant mediation plan, so they filed a lawsuit in court.
The plaintiff believed that the defendant did not inform in advance that the seats it sold had serious defects that blocked the line of sight, which defrauded consumers and violated consumers' right to choose and know. Not only should the plaintiff return the ticket price, but also punitive measures should be taken. Compensation is the responsibility of "refund one and compensate three".
The defendant argued that it did not agree with all the plaintiff’s claims. First of all, 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, which caused the load-bearing to exceed the venue ceiling safety standards. For safety reasons, stage corner columns were temporarily added as load-bearing columns, which is a conventional stage design. .
Secondly, the plaintiff’s evidence cannot prove that his line of sight was blocked. 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.
Again, the plaintiff in this case neither raised any objections on the spot nor left midway. The contract involved in the case has been fulfilled. The plaintiff’s request for a refund has no contractual basis or legal basis, and is also inconsistent with the principles of fairness and good faith. In summary, the defendant did not commit fraud intentionally or fraudulently. If the defendant must be held responsible, it would be negligence at best.
The defendant’s behavior was a defective performance, and he should bear the breach of contract liability for price reduction and compensation.
The Minhang District People’s Court, based on the pleadings and arguments of both parties and the evidence in the case, held that the defendant’s selling of “pillar tickets” did not constitute fraud. 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 misunderstanding.
In this case, 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 could not It was known at that time that the plaintiff's seat was blocked, and it was impossible for the plaintiff to purchase the ticket due to being misled by the defendant.
After the stage construction was completed, 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 the scene was 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 to proactively change the plaintiff's seat on site to eliminate the adverse effects. In summary, 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.
The court said
Consumers’ right to know and choose should be fully guaranteed
The Shanghai Minhang Court held that obtaining a complete and immersive concert audio-visual experience is a right that consumers should enjoy, and providing such a place and environment, It is also the obligation of the organizer. On the one hand, consumers’ right to know and choose should be fully guaranteed. Organizers should fully consider the links and factors that may interfere with the viewing experience, and disclose or inform them in advance. It is recommended that seats with serious obstructions not be sold to the outside world. For seats with certain obstructions, special tickets and regular-priced tickets can be refunded in a step-by-step manner. Change etc. On the other hand, all entities in the theatrical performance industry should actively assume corresponding responsibilities.
Negotiations with the organizer failed, and nine viewers chose to sue
last year. Nandu previously reported that in May 2023, many viewers reported that they bought "pillar tickets" at Liang Jingru's Shanghai concert, and their view was blocked by the pillars around the stage, causing controversy. discussion. 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.
Ms. Li introduced that these nine viewers all met through social media. “Because the early negotiations with the organizer failed, we were forced to sue. We wanted to find out whether the organizer had violated our legitimate rights. "
" 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 will not be built by the company. During the ticket sales stage, the company did not know that the stage design would have four pillars.
On November 15 of the same year, the Meilong People's Court of the Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai held a public hearing of the case in the first instance without pronouncing a verdict in court.
Written by: Nandu reporter Feng Yiran, Peng Yuxin, Zhong Xin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-