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 of contract by maliciously, and Cai Xukun was sentenced to pay his former boss 30 million yuan in liquidated damages.
It is worth noting that the publication of this document has been nearly 9 months since the time of the judgment. Yihai Culture appealed to the Second Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai after the first instance judgment.
Cai Xukun was sentenced to 3 million yuan in the first instance. The court held that it was not a malicious breach of contract.
The court held that it was not a malicious breach of contract.
The document shows 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 period was until April 2023. The contract stipulates that if the defendant proposes to terminate the contract, every year the plaintiff will have to pay the plaintiff an early termination compensation of 3 million yuan per year.
In June 2016, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a supplementary contract. If the defendant unilaterally proposes to terminate the contract, the plaintiff will have to pay the plaintiff an early termination compensation of 30 million yuan per year for every year in advance.
In February 2017, the defendant sent a notice of termination of the contract to the plaintiff and filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the termination of the contract and supplementary agreement signed by both parties. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the court and demanded that the defendant pay 30 million yuan in termination compensation and 15 million yuan in liquidated damages to the plaintiff.
Defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulates that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the premise that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the termination of the contract required to pay compensation to the plaintiff was that the plaintiff spent 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 basisKomiks According to. In addition, the amount of compensation raised by the plaintiff is significantly 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 trial of the termination dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The termination compensation arising from this was caused by the plaintiff who should pay attention but did not pay attention to the risk that the cooperation agreement might face the risk that the cooperation agreement may not be fulfilled. The defendant is now required to bear the insufficient basis for termination losses.
Regarding the part of the termination compensation, the defendant was underage when the contract and supplementary contract between the two parties were signed, and the plaintiff and the defendant’s mother, Xu, signed by the defendant for his future development, The achievements have not yet been clearly planned and estimated. The performance period of the two contracts is too long, in fact, not conducive to the defendant’s own development and the creation of a stable, healthy and orderly environment in the performance industry. The uncertainty of achieving commercial returns has also increased accordingly. Therefore, the defendant terminated the contract early, which is reasonable, and is not a malicious breach of contract. The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in the contract does not comply with the principle of fairness and reason.
In the end, the court determined the termination compensation at its discretion based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment in the defendant, the defendant’s income standards, and the performance period. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>CinemaThe capital is 3 million yuan.
The above severanceThe judgment date shown in the judgment document is 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 several trial announcements.
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.
20KomiksIn 15 years, 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 to modify the compensation for Cai Xukun’s unilateral termination. For example, Cai Xukun’s unilateral termination compensation was changed from 8 million yuan to 80 million yuan, and the compensation for early termination was changed from 3 million yuan per year to 30 million yuan per year.
20CinemaIn 2017, Cai Xukun filed a contract with Yihai Culture and filed a lawsuit. The main reason is that Yihai Culture unilaterally increased the contract liquidated damages and compensation at the same time, and also required Cai BabaylanXu Kun to bear the cost investment in his acting career activities and withdraw a high share of his acting activities income.
In addition, CaiXu Kun 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 its acting career, so it is impossible to improve professional and stable support for the better development of its 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 will be 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, Hai Culture requested that Cai Xukun be ordered to pay 50 million yuan in breach of contract compensation, and paid 70% of all the acting income (including later advertising endorsement income) obtained by starring in the online drama and variety show “Idol Trainee” to the company.
On October 29, 2018, Jing’an Court made a judgment to terminate 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 reach the negotiation, they can claim the corresponding rights separately. This also became the origin of future disputes between the two parties. In November 2022, Yihai Culture published several Weibo posts in succession, explaining the lawsuit with Cai Xukun and revealing a number of expenditure evidence. Yihai Culture said that after signing the contract with Cai Xukun in November 2015, the company invested a lot of money and resources to cultivate his acting career, and created and promoted Cinema. The company suffered huge losses before the termination of the contract before Cinema.
The evidence posted by Yihai Culture includes training contracts signed for trainees such as Cai Xukun, part of the training and even the whole process.tps://comicmov.com/”>Komiks‘s expense details, and there are also information such as photos of the company’s arrangement of publicity and promotion activities for Cai Xukun’s group. The relevant materials have attracted high attention on Weibo.
Komiks‘s attention.
In addition to going to court directly due to termination disputes, relevant legal documents show that in recent years, href=”https://comicmov.com/”>BabaylanYihai Culture has also sued Cai Xukun and his endorsement products and companies, including L’Oreal, Yangshengtang, VIVO, etc.
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, agreed that Cai Xukun is the spokesperson for the vivox23 series mobile phones, and shot a large number of advertisements and posters and other promotional materials.
Yihai Culture believes that his behavior isCinema 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 withdrawing the lawsuit.
For the first-instance judgment, many netizens congratulated Cai Xukun on winning the case and successfully termination↓
CinemaAs well as netizens use this to warn young people who want to enter performing arts companies and MCNBabaylan institutions↓
Source | Yangcheng Evening News·Yangchengpai Comprehensive Judgment Document Network, Upstream News, Securities Times, @Cai Xukun, NetKomiks Friends Comments and other editors | Wu Xia