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 his former boss 3 million breach of the contract.
It is worth noting that it has been nearly 9 months since the time of publication of this document was issued before the time of judgment. Cinema. BabaylanYihai Culture appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court after the first instance judgment.
CaiCinema Xu Kun was sentenced to compensation of 3 million yuan in the first instance. The court found that he was not a malicious breach of contract.
The plaintiff Yihai Company claimed that in 2015Komiks href=”https://comicmov.com/”>BabaylanIn November, he signed a contract with the defendant Cai Xukun, stipulating that the plaintiff is the defendant’s exclusive plenipotent broker, and the contract term is 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, 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 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 the two parties. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the court and was required to href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks asked the defendant to pay the plaintiff a termination compensation of RMB 30 million and a liquidated damages of RMB 15 million.
Defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulates that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the defendant needs to pay compensation to the plaintiff if the defendant unilaterally proposed to terminate the contract. The plaintiff 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 Komiks compensation paid by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had no basis for the expenses claimed by the plaintiff. In addition, the amount of compensation proposed by the plaintiff was 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 who should pay attention but did not pay attention to the risk that the cooperation agreement may face the risk that the cooperation agreement may not be fulfilled. The defendant is now required to bear the termination loss.
Related to the termination dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The compensation part, the defendant was underage when the contract and supplementary contract of both parties were signed, and the plaintiff and the defendant’s mother Xu signed it. 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. The uncertainty of achieving commercial returns has also increased accordingly. Therefore, the defendant terminated the contract early, which is reasonable and not a malicious breach of contract. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed in the contract to a high termination compensation Babaylan does not comply with the principle of fairness and reason.
Finally, the court determined the termination of the contract at its discretion based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment in the defendant, the defendant’s income standards, and the performance period.omicmov.com/”>Cinema compensation is 3 million yuan.
The above judgment document shows that the date of judgment is August 10, 2022. The document shows that if you are not satisfied with this judgment, you can 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 filed an appeal 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 a long time ago. 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 Asia”. During the recording of the program, the href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Cinema was transferred from the program producer, and 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, Cai Xukun signed a brokerage contract with Yihai Culture. At that time, Cai Xukun was 17 years old.
After the contract was signed, the two parties signed a supplementary contract in June 2016, and modified Cai Xukun’s termination compensation, if Cai Xukun unilaterally terminated the contract compensation was 80. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks00,000 yuan was modified 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 was that Yihai Culture unilaterally increased the contract liquidated damages and compensations at will, and also required Cai Xukun to bear the responsibility of his ownHe invests in the cost of his acting career activities and withdraws a high share of his acting career income.
In addition, Cai Xukun believes that Yihai Culture has not fulfilled the performance arts brokerage obligations agreed in the Komiks contract, has not fulfilled the artist’s agency affairs management and operation obligations, and has not made complete and reasonable plans for his acting career, so he cannot 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 will be April 17, 2023. After signing the contract, the company arranged for Cai Xukun to participate in the large-scale training program “Star Moving Asia”, and arranged for her to go to South Korea to receive artist training and release albums, such as Komiks, to help Cai Xukun develop from a middle school student to a formal debut artist.
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 500,000 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 go separately.Asses corresponding rights. 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 litigation matters with Cai Xukun, and Komiks and disclosed 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, shape his image and promote it, and his early termination of the contract caused huge losses to the company.
The evidence posted by Yihai Culture includes training contracts signed for trainees such as Cai Xukun and some training and even plastic surgery fees, as well as photos of the company’s promotional activities for Cai Xukun’s group, and other information. The relevant materials have attracted great attention on Weibo.
In addition to going to court directly due to termination disputes, relevant legal documents show that in recent years, Yihai Culture has also sued Cai Xukun and his endorsed products and companies, including L’Oreal, Yangshengtang, VIVO, etc.
If he sued Cai Xukun, Cai Xukun Studio and VIVO Company, he believed that Cai Xukun and Cai Xukun Studio had cooperated with VIVO without the company’s consent, agreed that Cai Xukun was 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 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 congratulated Cai Xukun on winning the case and successfully terminated the contract↓
As well as netizens used this to warn young people who hoped to enter performing arts companies and MCN institutions↓
Source | Yangcheng Evening News·Yangcheng School Comprehensive Judgment Document Network, Upstream News, Securities Times, @Cai Xukun, Netizen Comments and other editors | Wu Xia