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 was not a malicious breach of contract. 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. 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, the plaintiff will have to pay the plaintiff an early termination compensation of 300,000 yuan per year for every year of termination.
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 suedHe went to the court and asked the defendant to pay the plaintiff a termination compensation of 30 million yuan and a liquidated damages of 15 million yuan. Babaylan
Defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulates that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the compensation required to be paid to the plaintiff was required to terminate the contract. 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 a portrait authorization signed by the plaintiff and the defendant during the termination dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The resulting termination compensation arising from the plaintiff should pay attention to but did not 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. 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 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 amount of termination compensation, which does not comply with the principle of fairness and reason.
Ultimately, the court determined at its discretion to terminate the contract compensation of 300 based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment in the defendant, the defendant’s income standards, and the performance period.tps://comicmov.com/”>Komiks 10,000 yuan.
The judgment date shown in the above judgment is August 10, 2022. The document shows that if you are not convinced of 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 appealed 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 has not yet been signed. 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, the program was produced. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks‘s transfer, and Cai Xukun was told to transfer the contract, otherwise he would not be able to continue participating in the program. Babaylan 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 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 30 million yuan per year.
In 2017, Cai Xukun filed a termination contract with Yihai Culture and filed a lawsuit. The main reason was that Yihai Culture unilaterally arbitrarily increased the contract penalty and Cinemahttps://comicmov.com/”>Cinema compensation, and also required Cai Xukun to bear the cost investment of his acting career activities and to withdraw a high share of his acting career income.
In addition, Cai Xukun believes that Yihai Culture has not fulfilled the performance brokerage obligations agreed in the contract, failed to fulfill the artist’s agency 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. Its expression is Babaylan stated that on November 12, 2015, he signed a brokerage contract and supplementary agreement with Cai Xukun, agreeing that he is 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 “Star Asia”, and arranged to go to South Korea to receive artist training and release albums Komiks and others helped 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 “Brandministrative Contract”, and Komiks subsequently filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding the revocation of the brokerage contract. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Babaylan same.
Yihai Culture does 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 to give all the performance income (including later advertising endorsement income) obtained by starring in the online drama and variety show “Idol Trainee” Komiks7Komiks7Komiks0% paid 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 negotiate, they can claim the corresponding rights separately. This also became the origin of the future dispute 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 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. In addition, there are photos of the company’s promotion and promotion activities for Cai Xukun’s group, and other information. 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 and 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