[Source: Shenzhen News Network] On the morning of August 2, the second instance of Liang Jingru’s Shanghai concert “pillar ticket” lawsuit against the organizer plan was held in the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, but no verdict was announced in court. On the same day

[Source: Shenzhen News Network]

html On the morning of August 2, the second instance of Liang Jingru’s Shanghai concert “pillar ticket” lawsuit against the organizer’s plan was held in the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, but no verdict was pronounced in court. On the same day, the spectators who filed the appeal told reporters from Dute News that they insisted on the demand of "refund one and compensate three" and did not accept mediation. The respondent's attorney did not recognize the appellant's second-instance appeal and stated that the respondent's actions did not constitute fraud.

According to previous reports by Dute News (for details, click "The verdict in the Liang Jingru concert "pillar ticket" case, what do both parties think? Lawyer: Hope a precedent will be formed"), May 20-21, 2023 , when Liang Jingru held a solo concert in Shanghai, hundreds of audience members bought "pillar tickets" through the ticketing website, and their sight was blocked by the stage pillars, which affected the viewing experience. Since then, nine viewers have taken the lead in suing the organizer, Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan-Culture Performing Arts Co., Ltd., to the court, requesting "refund one and compensate three".

On June 20 this year, the People’s Court of Minhang District, Shanghai publicly announced the verdict of the first instance of the case. After trial, the court held that the defendant's selling of "pillar tickets" did not constitute fraud, but it was defective performance and constituted a breach of contract. The defendant should bear the liability for breach of contract by reducing the price and refunding compensation, and should use a stepped refund ratio based on the ticket price to make refunds.

Recently, 9 viewers decided to appeal. One of the audience members told a reporter from Duite News that there were three main reasons for the appeal: First, they wanted to find out when the organizer knew that there were pillars on the stage. “As far as the fact is concerned, the organizer did not inform us that there were pillars before the performance started. "; secondly, they are dissatisfied with the organizer's attitude of avoiding important matters; thirdly, it is not easy for consumers to protect their rights, and they hope that this case can change the chaos of concerts. "We don't have high expectations for the amount of compensation. We mainly hope to attract attention."

"The legal dispute is actually whether it constitutes fraud and whether the 'refund one and compensate three' is applicable. But for the parties involved, we want more Ask the other party to reveal the truth." Zhang Yuxia, the attorney representing the audience, said that the focus of the dispute is whether the stage pillars were erected in the original filing, or whether it was formed after subsequent revisions to the design plan; the organizer did so on May 18. I didn’t know until the day, or I already knew the relevant situation before the tickets were issued or before the pre-sale.

Zhang Liyu, the attorney for the organizer, said in an interview with Shell Finance that the respondent, as the organizer of the performance, had no need to conceal the stage pillars. He believes that holding a concert is a very systematic project, and defects such as stage pillars are entirely possible. This is indeed not fraud.

"The concert experience service is comprehensive and multi-faceted. Although the audience's sight blocked by the pillars will be affected to some extent, other on-site experiences including lighting, sound, sound effects and on-site atmosphere are actually still able to You can enjoy it normally." Zhang Liyu said that the respondent agreed that the audience whose vision was affected by the performance might have bad subjective emotions, so he agreed with the first instance judgment's determination of breach of contract, and the respondent should also bear such liability for breach of contract.

[Source: Dute Client]