On the afternoon of November 15, 2023, the Shanghai Minhang District People's Court held a hearing on a high-profile case of Liang Jingru's concert audience suing the organizer for a service contract dispute. The nine plaintiffs sued the concert organizer, Shanghai Rubik's Cube Pan Culture Performing Arts Co., Ltd., because they failed to get a satisfactory viewing experience because their seats were almost completely blocked by load-bearing pillars during Liang Jingru's concert on May 20 or 21 last year.
After the trial, on the morning of June 20, the Minhang District People's Court publicly pronounced the verdict of the first instance of the case. The court held that although the defendant's conduct did not constitute fraud, it was a defective performance and constituted a breach of contract. Therefore, the defendant was ordered to refund the plaintiff's ticket price according to the tiered refund ratio, according to the standard of 420 yuan, 650 yuan and 910 yuan for a single ticket.
Plaintiff Ni and nine others purchased tickets for Liang Jingru's Shanghai concert through a third-party sales platform in April last year, with ticket prices of 699 yuan, 999 yuan, and 1,299 yuan respectively. However, after the concert began, they found that their view was blocked by the load-bearing pillars of the stage to varying degrees, which seriously affected the viewing experience. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had committed fraud and demanded a refund of the ticket price and punitive damages of "one refund and three compensations".
The defendant argued that there were no load-bearing columns in the original stage design, and the stage corner columns were temporarily added as load-bearing after the addition of audio-visual equipment. In addition, the plaintiff could not prove that the view was obstructed, and that the live performance was a combination of factors, and the defendant did not promise an unobstructed view in the publicity.
After trial, the court held that the defendant's act of selling "pillar tickets" did not constitute fraud, but the services provided by the defendant during the performance of the contract were obviously defective and constituted a breach of contract. Based on the plaintiff's viewing experience and fare expectations, the court finally determined the tiered refund ratio to protect the plaintiff's rights and interests.
The judgment in this case reflects the protection of consumer rights and interests under mainland law, and clarifies the responsibilities and obligations of the organizer in providing services. At the same time, consumers are also reminded to fully understand the relevant information of the performance and reasonably protect their rights when purchasing performance tickets. The result of this judgment undoubtedly provides an important reference for the handling of similar incidents in the future.
What do you think of the first-instance verdict of the "Liang Jingru Concert "Pillar Ticket" case: the organizer needs to be refunded? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comment section!
If you are interested, please follow and forward it to your friends!
(If you have any objections to the content of the article, please contact us in time)