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 Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw, and Cai Xukun was sentenced to pay the former boss 3 million liquidated damages.
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 found that he did not breach of contract by maliciously. The documents show 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. If the defendant proposes to terminate the contract, every year the termination of the contract one year in advance, 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 plaintiff and asked to order the defendant to pay the plaintiff 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 compensation required to be paid to the plaintiff was paid for the termination of the contract. The plaintiff did not make effective investment in the training of the defendant and promotion. During the contract period, the defendant did not obtain any remuneration paid by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s claim of expenses was not based on any basis. In addition, the amount of compensation raised by the plaintiff is obviously inflated.
The first instance court held that the part of the 15 million breach of contract was the solution of the plaintiff and the defendant. During the trial of the contract dispute, the portrait authorization cooperation agreement signed by the plaintiff and the non-party. The resulting termination compensation is caused by the plaintiff who should pay attention to but fail to pay attention to the risk that the cooperation agreement may face inability to perform. The defendant is now required to bear the insufficient basis for termination losses.
Regarding the termination compensation part, the two parties jointly cooperated with the defendant and the supplementary contract and signed 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 business.Creating a stable, healthy and orderly environment in the performance industry, and the uncertainty of achieving commercial returns has also increased accordingly. Therefore, the defendant terminated the contract early, which is reasonable, and it is not a malicious breach of contract. The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in the contract stipulates a high amount of termination compensation, which does not comply with the principle of fairness and reason.
Finally, the court determined at its discretion to terminate the contract compensation of RMB 3 million based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment made by the defendant, the defendant’s income standards, and the performance period of Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw, as appropriate.
The judgment date shown in the above judgment document is August 10, 2022. The document shows that Babaylan 1990 cloth draw. 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. Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw appealed 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.
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.
Cinema 1950 witch cloth drawAfter the contract was signed, the two parties signed it in June 2016The supplementary contract was signed and Cai Xukun’s termination compensation was modified. For example, Cai Xukun’s unilateral termination compensation was modified from 8 million yuan to 80 million yuan, and the early termination compensation was modified from 3 million yuan per year to 30 million yuan per year. In 2017, Cai Xukun filed a termination of the contract with YihaimanCinema 1950 witch cloth drawCinema 1950 witch cloth drawCinema 1950 witch cloth drawIn 2017, Cai Xukun filed a lawsuit with YihaimanCinema 1950 witch cloth drawHua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua Hua The main reason is that Yihai Culture unilaterally increased the contract liquidated damages and compensation at the same time, and also required Cai Xukun to bear the cost investment in his acting career activities, and withdraw a high amount of revenue from his acting activities to share the revenue.
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 the exclusive plenipotent broker of Cai Xukun, with the contract term to April 17, 2023. After signing the contract, the company arranged for Cai Xukun to participate in the large-scale training category selection “Star Moving Asia”, and arranged for her to go to South Korea to receive artist training, release albums, etc., to help Cai Xukun develop from a middle school student to a formal debut artist.
In January 2017, the company notified Cinema 1950 witch cloth drawCai 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 XuCinema 1950 witch cloth drawKun 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 with the solutionExcept for 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 performance income (including late advertising endorsement revenue) obtained by him 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 litigation matters 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, 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 Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw and some training and even plastic surgery fees details. In addition, there are 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, Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw, Komiks 1960 witch cloth drawYihai Culture has also sued Cai Xukun and his endorsed products and companies, including L’Oreal, Yangshengtang, Komiks 1960 witch cloth drawVIVO, 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, Babaylan 1990 cloth drawIt was agreed that Cai Xukun was the spokesperson for the vivox23 series mobile phones and filmed a large number of advertisements and posters and other promotional materials in Babaylan 1990 cloth draw.
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, Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw@Cai Xukun, Netizen Comments and other editors | Wu Xia