Recently, the first-instance judgment of the contract dispute between Shanghai Yihai Film and Television Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yihai Culture) and Cai Xukun entrusted the Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw 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 determined that he was not a malicious breach of contract. The document showed 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, the plaintiff will have to pay the early termination compensation for every year in advance of termination of the contract 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 must pay 30 million yuan in advance 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 filed a lawsuit in court and demanded that the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff a termination compensation of 30 million yuan and a liquidated damages of 15 million yuan.
Defendant Cai Xukun argued that the contract stipulates that the defendant unilaterally proposed that the compensation needed to be paid to the plaintiff was paid to the plaintiff because the plaintiff spent a lot of energy and costs to cultivate the defendant. Cinema 1950 witch cloth drawIn 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 cooperation signed by the plaintiff and the non-case party during the trial of the termination dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The resulting termination compensation is caused by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff should pay attention to the risk that the cooperation agreement may face the risk of inability to perform. The defendant is now required to bear the insufficient basis for termination losses. Regarding the termination compensation, the defendant was underage when the contract and supplementary contract were 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 performance period of the two contracts is over. In fact, it is 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 should also be increased. Therefore, the defendant terminated the contract early, which is reasonable and not a malicious breach of contract.The agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant in the contract to have a high termination compensation is not in line with the principle of fairness and reason.
Finally, the court determined at its discretion to terminate the contract compensation of RMB 3 million based on the plaintiff’s publicity investment, 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 of the number of parties or representatives of the Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw, 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 several trial announcements.
The dispute between the two parties has been around for a long time. Cai Xukun is still underage. According to the Securities Times, the termination dispute between Cai Xukun and the 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, 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. At this time, Komiks 1960 witch cloth draw Cai Xukun was 17 years old.
After the contract was signed, both parties wereA supplementary contract was signed in June 2016 and the compensation for termination of Cai Xukun was modified. For example, Cai Xukun’s unilateral termination of the contract was modified from 8 million yuan to 80 million yuan, and the compensation for early termination was modified from 3 million yuan per year to 30 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 increased the contract liquidated damages and compensation, and also asked 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 brokerage affairs management and operation obligations, and has not made complete and reasonable plans for his acting career, and has not improved professional and stable support for the better development of his acting career.
However, Yihai Culture tells another story. It stated that on November 12, 2015, he and Cai Xukun signed a contract and supplementary agreement for the transaction and agreed that he would be Cai Xukun’s exclusive plenipotent broker, and the contract term was until April 17, 2023. After signing the contract, the company arranged for Cai Xukun to participate in the large-scale cultivation talent show “Star Moving Asia” and arranged for him to go to South Korea to receive Babaylan 1990 cloth draw artist training, and released Babaylan 1990 cloth draw albums, etc., to help Cai Xukun develop from a middle school student to officially launch Komiks 1960 witch clothesdrawDao 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 the company’s appointment. 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 Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw sales brokerage contract.
Yihai Culture does not agree to terminate the contract. In the counterclaim, Cai Xukun was ordered to pay 50 million yuan in breach of contract compensation at Hai Culture, 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 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 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 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, Cinema 1950 witch cloth drawVIVO, 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 Company without the company’s consent, and agreed to Cai XuKun is the spokesperson for the vivox23 series mobile phones and has filmed 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, Cinema 1950 witch cloth draw, 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