It is understood that when Liang Jingru recently held a concert in Shanghai, some audiences encountered some problems when watching the concert on the spot, originally thought that they could watch Liang Jingru's performance up close, but found that the original superior position was blocked by the load-bearing column, so they did not get the expected viewing experience when watching the concert live.
Many audience members did not choose to leave the show on the spot when they realized that there was a certain problem in their position, but chose to insist on watching the whole performance until the end of the performance, because they believed that they had the right to a better viewing experience, and they also hoped that the organizer could take the initiative to give some compensation.
However, after communicating and negotiating with the organizers, the audience did not get the results they wanted, and the organizers simply informed the audience verbally or in writing, so that the audience could express their demands through the complaint channel, which also made the audience feel that their demands were not taken seriously and were not effectively resolved.
In the face of such a situation, some viewers chose to sue the organizer to the court, believing that the organizer had certain defects in the process of providing services and failed to inform the audience in time, which was an infringement of their right to know and the legal responsibility that the organizer should bear.
It is understood that the organizer who was sued this time is Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan Culture Performing Arts Co., Ltd., and a total of 9 viewers chose to sue the organizer to the court, and the content of their lawsuit is roughly the same, all hoping that the organizer can bear the liability for breach of contract and give certain economic compensation.
The plaintiff's lawsuit mainly includes three aspects, firstly, it requires the organizer to refund the full amount of the ticket money originally paid, secondly, it requires the organizer to give punitive damages of "one refund and three compensations", and thirdly, it requires the organizer to bear the litigation costs of the case.
The reason why the plaintiffs filed such a lawsuit is because they believe that their legitimate rights and interests have been infringed, and on the other hand, they also hope to protect their legitimate rights and interests through legal means, and also make the organizers aware of the legal pressure they are facing, so that they can solve the problem more actively and give the audience due compensation.
In response to the audience's claims, the court also conducted corresponding trial work, and also listened to the opinions and defenses of both the plaintiff and the defendant.
Throughout the litigation process, the plaintiff fully adduced evidence and provided relevant ticket purchase vouchers, on-site photos, videos and other materials, which also confirmed that the "pillar ticket" mentioned by the plaintiff had certain defects.
In the defendant's defense, they did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the services provided were not defective, nor did they prove that they had effective communication and exchanges with the plaintiff in the process of providing services, and could not prove that the services they provided were in accordance with the agreement.
In the final judgment, the court held that the defendant had obvious defects in the process of providing services and failed to inform the plaintiff in a timely manner, which was an infringement of the plaintiff's right to know and should also bear the liability for breach of contract.
The court also supported the plaintiff's claim, requiring the defendant to adopt a corresponding refund ratio according to different fares, and for the plaintiff's request for a full refund and punitive damages of "one refund and three compensations", it was not simply to meet the plaintiff's claim, but to require the organizer to carry out a "step-by-step" refund treatment, and also made the organizer aware of the legal responsibility they should bear.
Through such a first-instance judgment, it also means that the organizers do not have any advantage in front of the law, and the services they provide do have certain flaws, and they should also give the audience certain compensation in accordance with the law.
Of course, in the whole process of the incident, we also hope that the audience can rationally protect their rights and interests, and can also choose to solve the problem through reconciliation, so as to finally achieve a mutually acceptable result, so that the concert can proceed smoothly and the audience can also get a satisfactory participation experience.