Recently, the first-instance judgment of the institution contract between Cinema 1950 witch cloth drawShanghai Yihai Film and Television Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yihai Culture) and Cai Xukun were 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 when this document was published by Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw‘s Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw‘s announcement nearly 9 months after 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 in the first instanceCinema 1950 witch cloth draw3 million yuan Court found that he was not a malicious breach of contract
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 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 both parties. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the court and demanded that the defendant 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 prerequisite for termination of the contract was to be paid to the plaintiff for the purpose of cultivating the plaintiff. href=”https://comicmov.com/”>Komiks 1960 witch cloth drawThe defendant paid a lot of energy and costs, but 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 there was no basis for the expenses claimed by the plaintiff. In addition, the amount of compensation proposed by the plaintiff was significantly inflated.
The first instance court held that regarding 15 million<a The breach of contract loss is the result of the plaintiff and the defendant's termination dispute trial. The plaintiff and the non-partner signed a portrait authorization cooperation agreement signed by the plaintiff and the non-partner during the trial of the termination dispute. The resulting termination compensation is caused by the plaintiff who should pay attention but fail to pay attention to the risk of inability to perform the agreement. The defendant is now required to bear the termination loss.
About Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw‘s agreement may face the risk of inability to perform. The defendant is now required to bear the termination loss.
About Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw termination compensation part, contract and supplement between the two parties were signed.The lawsuit is underage, 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 two combinations of Babaylan 1990 cloth draw are actually not conducive to the defendant’s development and creation of a stable, healthy and orderly environment in the performance industry, and the uncertainty of achieving commercial returns has also increased accordingly. Therefore, the defendant’s early termination of the contract is reasonable, not a malicious breach of contract. The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in the contract is not in line with the principle of fairness and reason.
Finally, the court determined at its discretion to the termination compensation of 30 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, 2022Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw. 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 Second Intermediate People’s Court of Hai City after the first instance, and the court issued several trial announcements. Babaylan 1990 cloth draw
The dispute between the two parties was signed by Babaylan 1990 cloth draw for a long time. draw At the same time, Cai Xukun is underage yet
According to the Securities Times, Cai Xukun’s termination dispute with his former boss Yihai Culture can be traced back to 2015.
In 2015, Cai Xukun signed a contract with Haoshang Media (HuCinema 1950 witch cloth draw South) 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 modified Cai Xukun’s termination compensation, such as Cai Xukun’s unilateral termination compensation from RMB 8 million to RMB 80 million, and the early termination compensation from RMB 3 million per year to RMB 30 million per year.
2017Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw, Cai Xukun filed a termination of the contract with Yihai Culture and filed a lawsuit. 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 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, failed to fulfill the artist’s brokerage affairs management and operation obligations, and has not made a complete and comprehensive planning for its acting career, so it 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 plenipotent broker, and the contract term will be 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 who officially debuted.
In January 2017, the company notified Cai Xukun to participate in the performance, but was rejected Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw. Since then, Cai Xukun refused to participate in any activities arranged by the company. Babaylan 1990 cloth drawOn 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, Yihai Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw culture requested that Cai Xukun 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, Babaylan 1990 cloth drawJing’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. If they fail to negotiate, the corresponding rights can be claimed 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, some training Babaylan 1990 clothes draw 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 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