Recently, the first-instance judgment of the entrustment contract dispute between Shanghai Yihai Film and Television Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yihai Culture) and Cai Xukun was made public. According to the Judgment Documents Network, the court found that Cai Xukun did not breach the contract by maliciously, and Cai Xukun was sentenced to pay the former owner 3 million RMB. Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw breach of contract by Babaylan 1990 cloth draw.
It is worth noting that the time of publication of this document has been nearly 9 months since the time of the judgment. Yihai Culture appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court after the first instance judgment.
Cai Xukun was sentenced to compensation of 3 million yuan in the first instance. The court determined that he was not a malicious breach of contract. The document showed that the plaintiff Yihai Company claimed that in November 2015, he signed a contract with the defendant Cai Xukun, stipulating that the plaintiff was the defendant’s exclusive plenipotent broker, and the contract term was until April 2023. The contract stipulates that if the defendant proposes to terminate the contract, the plaintiff will have to pay the plaintiff an early termination compensation of RMB 3 million per year for every year of termination.
In June 2016, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a supplementary contract. If the defendant unilaterally proposes to terminate the contract, every year the termination of the contract, the plaintiff must pay 30 million yuan in advance compensation for early termination compensation.
In February 2017, the defendant Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw sent a contract termination to the plaintiffCinema 1950 witch clothes draw and filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the termination of the contract signed by the two parties and the supplementary agreement. draw discussion. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the court and demanded that the defendant pay the plaintiff 30 million yuan in termination compensation and 15 million yuan in liquidated damages.
Defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulates that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the defendant needs to pay compensation to the plaintiff to terminate the contract is that the plaintiff has paid a lot of energy and costs to cultivate the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff did not make effective investment in the training and promotion of the defendant. During the contract period, the defendant did not obtain any remuneration paid by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claimed no basis for the expenses claimed by the plaintiff. In addition, the amount of compensation proposed by the plaintiff is obviously inflated.
The first instance court held that the part of the 15 million breach of contract loss was a portrait authorization cooperation agreement signed by the plaintiff and the defendant during the termination dispute trial. The resulting termination compensation was caused by the plaintiff, but did not pay attention to the cooperation. drawThe agreement may face the risk of inability to perform, and the defendant is now required to bear the loss of termination.
Regarding the termination compensation part, the defendant is underage when the contract and supplementary contract of the two parties are signed.href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Babaylan 1990 cloth draw was signed by the plaintiff and the defendant’s mother Xu. The defendant has not yet formed a clear plan and estimate of his future development and achievements. The long performance period of the two contracts is actually not conducive to the defendant’s own development and the creation of a stable, healthy and orderly environment in the performance industry, and the uncertainty of commercial returns has also increased accordingly. Therefore, the defendant’s early termination of the contract is reasonable, not a malicious breach of contract. The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in the contract is not in line with the principle of fairness and reason.
Finally, the court determined that the termination compensation was RMB 3 million based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment in Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw on the defendant, the defendant’s income standards, and the performance period.
The above judicial documents Babaylan 1990 cloth draw show the judgment date as August 10, 2022. The document shows that if you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you may submit an appeal to this court within fifteen days from the date of delivery of the judgment, and submit a copy according to the number of the other party or representatives, and appeal to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court.
According to Qichacha, Yihai Culture appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court after the first instance, and the court issued a trial announcement many times.
The dispute between the two parties has been around for a long time. Cai Xukun is still underage. According to the Securities Times, the termination dispute between Cai Xukun and his former boss Yihai Culture can be traced back to 2015.
In 2015, Cai Xukun signed a contract with Haoshang Media (Hunan) Co., Ltd. for participating in the “Star Moving Asia”. During the recording of the program, due to the transfer of the program producer, Cai Xukun was told to transfer the contract, otherwise he would not be able to continue participating in the program. In order to continue to complete the program recording, Cai Xukun signed a brokerage contract with Yihai Culture on November 17, 2015, when Cai Xukun was 17 years old.
After the contract was signed, the two parties signed a supplementary contract in June 2016, modifying the termination compensation of Cinema 1950 witch cloth drawCinema 1950 witch cloth drawCinema 1950 witch cloth drawCiema unilateral termination compensation was changed from 8 million yuan to 80 million yuan, and the early termination compensation was changed from 3 million yuan per year to 30 million yuan per year.
In 2017, Cai Xukun filed a termination of the contract with Yihai Culture and filed a lawsuit. The main reason is that Yihai Culture unilaterally increased the contract liquidated damages and compensations at the same time, and also required Cai Xukun to bear the cost investment of his acting career activities Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw, and withdraw a high share of his acting activities income.
In addition, Cai Xukun believes that Yihai Culture has not fulfilled the performance arts brokerage obligations agreed in the contract, has not fulfilled the artist’s brokerage affairs management and operation obligations, and has not made complete and reasonable plans for his acting career, so it is impossible to improve professional and stable support for the better development of his acting career.
However, Yihai Culture tells another story. It stated that on November 12, 2015, he signed a brokerage contract and supplementary agreement with Cai Xukun, stipulating that he is Cai Xukun’s exclusive plenipotent broker, and the contract term is until April 17, 2023.
After signing the contract, the company arranged for Cai Xukun to participate in the large-scale cultivation talent show “Star Asia”, and arranged for going to South Korea to receive artist training, release albums, etc., to help Cai Xukun develop from a middle school student to an artist officially debut.
In January 2017, the company notified Cai Xukun to participate in the performance, but was rejected. Since then, Cai Xukun refused to participate in any activities arranged by the company. On February 10 of that year, Cai Xukun proposed to terminate the Brokerage Contract, and then filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the revocation of the Brokerage Contract.
Yihai Culture does not agree to terminate the contract. In the counterclaim, Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw, in accordance with Hai Culture’s request, ordered Cai Xukun to pay 50 million yuan in compensation for breach of contract, and starred in online dramas and variety shows “I’m not sure what to do.”omicmov.com/”>Komiks 1960 witch cloth drawLike Trainee” paid 70% of all acting income (including late advertising endorsement revenue) to the company.
On October 29, 2018, Jing’an Court issued a Babaylan 1990 clothes draw judgment, terminated the brokerage contract and compensation agreement signed by both parties. However, regarding the compensation issues caused by the termination of the contract, the judgment stated that the two parties can negotiate on their own, and if they fail to negotiate, they can claim corresponding rights separately. This also became the origin of the future dispute between the two parties. In November 2022, Yihai Culture published several Weibo posts in succession, explaining the litigation matters with Cai Xukun and revealing a number of expenditure evidence.
Yihai Culture stated that after signing the contract with Cai Xukun in November 2015, the company invested a lot of money and resources to perform in his performance. Draw training, image shaping and publicity promotion, and its early termination of contract caused huge losses to the company.
Yihai Culture’s evidence includes training contracts signed for trainees such as Cai Xukun and some training and even plastic surgery fees. In addition, there are photos of the company’s promotional activities for Cai Xukun’s group. Related materials have caused great concern on Weibo.
If he sued Cai Xukun, Cai Xukun Studio and VIVO, he believed that Cai Xukun and Cai Xukun Studio had cooperated with VIVO without the company’s consent, and agreed that Cai Xukun Studio had cooperated with VIVO without the company’s consent, and agreed to Cai Xukun Studios.Kun is the spokesperson for the vivox23 series mobile phones and has filmed a large number of advertisements and posters and other promotional materials.
Yihai Culture believes that its behavior infringes on its exclusive brokerage rights, constitutes unfair competition, seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of Yihai Company, and causes significant economic losses to Yihai Company. However, most of these lawsuits ended with Yihai Culture’s withdrawal of the lawsuit.
For the first instance judgment, many netizens respectfully Cinema 1950 witch cloth drawCiema 1950 witch cloth drawI like Cai Xukun to win the case and successfully terminate the contract↓
As well as netizens took this to warn young people who hope to enter performing arts companies and MCN institutions↓
Source | Yangcheng Evening News·Yangcheng School Comprehensive Judgment Document Network, Upstream News, Securities Times, @Cai Xukun, NetKomiks 1960 witch cloth drawFriends Comments and other editors | Wu Xia