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 for publication of this document Babaylan 1990 cloth draw has been nearly 9 months since the judgment was made. 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 CompanyKomiks 1960 witch cloth draw claimed that in November 2015, he signed a contract with the defendant Cai Xukun, agreeing to Babaylan 1990 cloth drawThe plaintiff is the defendant’s exclusive plenipotent broker, with the contract term 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 with the agreement that if the contract is unilaterally filed by Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw, the plaintiff will have to pay the plaintiff an early termination compensation of RMB 30 million per year.
In February 2017, the defendant sent a notice of termination of the contract to the plaintiff and Komiks 1960 witch clothes drawThe court filed a lawsuit, 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 the plaintiff RMB 30 million in termination compensation and RMB 15 million in liquidated damages.
The defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulates that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the defendant needs to pay compensation to the plaintiff to terminate the contract is that the plaintiff has 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 remuneration paid by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff claimed no basis. In addition, the amount of compensation proposed by the plaintiff is obviously inflated.
The first instance court held that the part of the 15 million breach of contract was Cinema 1950 witch clothes drawDuring the trial of the termination dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, the portrait authorization cooperation agreement signed by the plaintiff and the non-party. The resulting termination compensation is arising from the plaintiff who should pay attention 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 termination loss.
As for the termination compensation, the two parties jointly Komiks 1960 witch cloth drawThe defendant was underage when the contract was signed and the supplementary contract was signed by the plaintiff and 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 creation of performing arts. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Babaylan 1990 cloth drawThe industry is stable, healthy and orderly. 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 stipulates a high termination compensation, which does not comply with the fair and reasonable principle of Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw.
In the end, the court determined at its discretion to terminate the contract compensation of 3 million yuan 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 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, Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw, 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 a long time ago. Cai Xukun is underage. According to the Securities Times, Cai Xukun and his former boss Yihai Culture’s termination dispute. drawFan can be traced back to 2015.
In 2015, Cinema 1950 witch cloth drawCai Xukun signed a contract with Haoyang 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 recording of the Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw program, on November 17, 2015, Cai Xuks 1960 witch cloth draw, 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. 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 Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw to 3 million yuan per year href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw30 million yuan per year.
In 2017, Cai Xukun filed a termination of the contract with Yihai Culture and filed a lawsuit. The main reason is that Yihai Culture unilaterally arbitrarily increases the liquidated damages and compensations in Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw, and also requires 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 agency affairs management and operation obligations, and has not made complete and reasonable plans for his acting career, and has not made a complete and reasonable plan 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 said, 2015On November 12, 2023, he signed a brokerage contract and supplementary agreement with Cai Xukun, agreeing to be Cai Xukun’s exclusive plenipotent broker, with the contract term to April 17, 2023. After signing the contract, the company arranged for Cai Xukun to participate in the large-scale cultivation talent show festival “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 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 withdrawal of the Brokerage Contract.
Yihai Culture does not agree to terminate the contract. In the counterclaim, Yihai Culture Babaylan 1990 cloth draw demanded that Cai Xukun 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 signed by both parties and the Babaylan 1990 cloth draw compensation agreement. 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 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 direct dispute resolutionIn addition to the confrontation, 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