Recently, the first-instance judgment of the contract dispute between Shanghai Yihai Film and Television Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yihai Culture) and Cai Xukun entrusted to be made public. According to the Judgment Document Network, the court found that Cai Xukun did not breach the contract by maliciously, 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 CultureBabaylan 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, 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 will have to pay the plaintiff an early termination compensation of 30 million yuan per year.
20172Komiks month, the defendant went toThe plaintiff sent a notice of termination of the contract and filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the termination of the contract and supplementary agreement signed by both parties. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in court and demanded that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff a termination compensation of 30 million yuan and a liquidated damages of 15 million yuan.
Defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulates that the defendant unilaterally proposed to terminate the contract and needed to pay compensation to the plaintiff’s plaintiff because 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’s claim had no 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 portrait authorization cooperation agreement signed between the plaintiff and the non-case party during the trial of the termination dispute between the plaintiff and the Komiks. The resulting termination compensation is the plaintiff. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>CinemaNotes but fails to pay attention to the risk that the cooperation agreement may face the risk of inability to perform. The defendant is now required to bear the loss of termination.
Regarding the termination compensation part, the defendant was underage when the contract and supplementary contract of the two 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 in advance, which is reasonable and 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.
Finally, the court determined at its discretion to terminate the contract compensation of RMB 3 million based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment in the defendant, the defendant’s income standards and the performance period.
The judgment date shown in the above judgment document is August 10, 2022. The document shows that if you are not convinced of this judgment, you can deliver it in the judgment.Within fifteen days from the date of the date, the appeal shall be submitted to this court, and a copy shall be submitted according to the number of the other party or representatives, and the appeal shall be made 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, on November 17, 2015, Cai Xukun signed a brokerage contract with Yihai Culture. Cai Xukun was 17 years old at this time.
After the contract was signed, the two parties signed a supplementary contract in June 2016 and modified Cai Xukun’s termination compensation. For example, Cai Xukun’s 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 3 million yuan per year to 3 million yuan per year.
In 2017, Cai Xukun filed a termination of the contract with Yihai Culture and filed a lawsuit. CinemaThe main reason is that Yihai Culture unilaterally increased the contract liquidated damages and compensations at will, and also required Cai Xukun to bear the cost investment in his acting career activities 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 given his performance arts.The baylan industry has made complete and reasonable plans and cannot 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 full-ownership, 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 of Cinema, but was rejected. Since then, Cai Xukun refused to participate in any Cinema 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 the late-stage endorsement income) obtained by starring in the online drama and variety show “Idol Trainee” to Komiks.com/”>Komiks.
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 disclosed a number of evidence of expenditures.
Yihai Culture stated 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 him. Cinema, and Komiks‘s early termination of contract caused the company to suffer huge losses.
Yihai Culture’s evidence shows that the Komiks training contract 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 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, Komiks‘s Cinema 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, and agreed that Cai Xukun was the agent of the vivox23 series mobile phones. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks‘s spokesperson, and 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 congratulated Cai Xukun on winning the case and successfully termination of the contract↓
Another netizens took this to warn young people who hope to enter performing arts companies and MCN institutions↓
Source | Yangcheng Evening News·Yangcheng School ComprehensiveCinemaJudgment Document Network, Upstream News, Securities Times, @Cai Xukun, Netizen Comments and other editors | Wu Xia