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 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 Culture appealed to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court after the first instance judgment.
Cai Xukun was sentenced to 3 million yuan in compensation 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 and plenipotent broker. 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 plaintiff will be terminated one year earlier, and the plaintiff will have to pay 30 million yuan in advance compensation for early termination.
In February 2017, the defendant sent a notice of termination of the contract to the plaintiff and filed a lawsuit with the court, asking for href=”https://comicmov.com/”>BabaylanSee Komiks terminated the contract and supplementary agreement signed by both parties. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the court and asked the defendant to order the defendant to 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 defendant unilaterally required the payment of compensation to the plaintiff to terminate the contract. The plaintiff paid a lot of energy and cost to cultivate the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff did not effectively train and promote the defendant. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Cinema investment. During the contract period, the defendant did not obtain any remuneration paid by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s claim had no basis for the expenses claimed. In addition, the amount of compensation proposed by the plaintiff was 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 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 might not be fulfilled. The defendant is now required to bear the insufficient basis for termination losses.
About 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 it. The defendant’s future development and achievements have not yet been shaped. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Babaylan has made it clear that 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, not Cinema maliciously breached the contract, and the plaintiff and the defendant agreed in the contract with a high amount of termination compensation, which did not comply with the principle of fairness and reason.
In the end, the court determined that the termination compensation was RMB 3 million at its discretion based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment in the defendant, the defendant’s income standards, and the performance period.
PreviouslyThe 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.
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, and the resolution of Cai Xukun href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Cinema‘s contract compensation has been modified. For example, Cai Xukun’s unilateral termination compensation has been modified from 8 million yuan to 80 million yuan, and the early termination compensation has been modified from 3 million yuan per year to 30 million yuan per year.
In 2017, Cai Xukun filed a lawsuit against Yihai Culture. The main reason is that Yihai Culture unilaterally arbitrarily increased the contract liquidated damages and Komiks compensation, 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 agent agreed in the contract.micmov.com/”>Komiks‘s obligation, failed to fulfill the obligation of managing and operating artists’ agency affairs, did not make complete and reasonable plans for their acting career, and could not improve professional and stable support for the better development of their acting career.
However, Yihai Culture tells another story. It said that on November 12, 2015, he signed a brokerage contract and supplementary agreement with Cai Xukun, agreeing that he is the exclusive and full-ownership agent of Cai Xukun, and the contract period is until April 17, 2023.
After signing, the company arranged for Cai Xukun to participate in the large-scale cultivation talent show “Star Asia”, and arranged to go to South Korea to receive artist training, release albums, etc., to help Cai Xukun develop from a middle school student to formal Cinema debuted as an 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 “AgentCinemaContract”, and then filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the revocation of the brokerage contract.
Yihai Culture did not agree to terminate the contract. In the counterclaim, Yihai Culture asked to order Cai Xukun to pay 50 million yuan in compensation for breach of contract, 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, for the compensation issues caused by the termination of the contract, Babaylan‘s 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.
20BabaylanIn November 22, Yihai Culture published several Weibo posts in succession, explaining the litigation matters with Cai Xukun, and disclosed a number of expenditure evidence.
Yihai Culture stated that 20<a After signing a 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 his promotion. His early termination of the contract caused the company to suffer huge losses.
Yihai Culture’s evidence includes the training contract signed for trainees such as Cai Xukun and some Komiks training and even plastic surgery fees, and there are also publicThe company arranged photos and other information about Cai Xukun’s group to promote the activities of the Babaylan promotion activities, and the relevant materials 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, 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 filmed a large number of Komiks‘s 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. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks↓
Source | Yangcheng Evening News·Yangcheng School Comprehensive Judgment Document Network, Upstream News, Securities Times, @Cai Xukun, Netizen Comments and other editors | Wu Xia