Follow us
Swipe for Chinese version
The organizer of Malaysian singer Fish Leong's Shanghai concert has been ordered to refund some ticket fees in tiers, with the maximum refund reaching 70 percent of the original price, after nine fans sued, claiming their views at the concert were blocked by pillars and demanding refunds, the Minhang District People's Court in Shanghai said in a ruling issued on June 20th.
The nine plaintiffs, who purchased tickets ranging from 999 yuan (US$137.60) to 1,299 yuan to attend the concert on May 20 and 21, 2023, claimed that their views were obstructed by pillars surrounding the stage during the concert without being informed in advance, and they had failed to reach an agreement with the organizer on compensation.
Each filed a lawsuit against the concert's organizer, the Shanghai Morefun entertainment company, and the court decided to consolidate the nine lawsuits for joint proceedings.
The nine plaintiffs demanded a refund of the original ticket price, along with punitive compensation amounting to three times the ticket cost. They contended that the organizer had failed to inform them beforehand of significant visual obstructions, accusing the defendant of fraudulent behavior and infringement of consumer rights.
The court confirmed the plaintiffs' claim that their view was obstructed. However, the existing evidence was insufficient to exclude all reasonable doubts and was not enough to determine that the defendant committed fraud.
The court believed that the defendant provided service that did not meet the agreement between the two parties, and there were obvious defects, constituting a breach of contract. Therefore, the defendant should bear the liability for breach of contract.
Since the plaintiffs did not leave the venue immediately and thus rejected the defendant's defective performance, the court expressed difficulty in supporting the plaintiff's request for a full refund and believed that a partial refund could be requested instead.
In summary, the court's first instance judgment ruled that the defendant should refund the ticket prices to the nine plaintiffs according to a tiered refund ratio, based on the individual ticket prices of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan.
演唱会是歌手在观众前现场表演，用歌声、造型、舞台布置、光影特效等共同呈现的视听盛宴。消费者高价购买演唱会门票，就是想一睹偶像风采。消费者倪某等因购买到“柱子票”，观看演出时面对偶像“只闻其声而不见其人”，体验感大打折扣，又不满演艺公司给出的调解方案，于是起诉至闵行区人民法院。
原告诉称：2023年4月，原告倪某等九人通过第三方销售平台购买了梁静茹上海演唱会的门票，票价分别为699元、999元、1299元等，主办方为被告上海某演艺公司。2023年5月20日、5月21日演唱会开场，原告等人入场后，发现其门票位置的视线受舞台承重柱不同程度遮挡，严重影响观看体验。在演唱会结束后，原告等人不接受相关调解方案，故向法院提起了诉讼。
原告认为被告未提前告知其售卖的座位存在视线被遮挡的严重瑕疵，对消费者存在欺诈行为，侵犯了消费者的选择权和知情权，不仅应向原告返还票款，还应进行惩罚性赔偿，承担“退一赔三”的责任。
被告辩称：不同意原告的全部诉讼请求。首先，原先的舞台设计并无承重柱，演出前制作方为了提升演出效果，增加了影音设备，导致承重超出场馆吊顶安全标准，为安全考虑，故临时增加了舞台角柱作为承重，属于常规舞台设计。其次，原告证据不能证明其视线被遮挡，即使被遮挡，也尚未达到导致合同目的不能实现的程度。现场演出是声、光、色、舞台、表演、现场氛围等相结合的整体，其中现场氛围感尤为重要。被告从未在任何宣传资料中明确过舞台没有柱子或者无任何视角遮挡，演出现场的设施设备不可避免会对某些位置的观众视野造成不同程度的遮挡。再次，本案原告既未现场提出异议，也未中途退场，案涉合同已经履行完毕，原告再要求退款没有合同基础和法律依据，也不符合公平及诚信原则。综上，被告不存在欺诈的故意和欺诈行为，如果一定要说被告有责任，最多也是过失。
闵行区人民法院结合双方当事人诉辩称意见及在案证据，经审理认为：
1.被告售卖“柱子票”的行为尚未构成欺诈。欺诈是指故意告知虚假情况或者负有告知义务的一方故意隐瞒真实情况，致使当事人基于错误认识作出错误意思表示。本案 中，从客观情况看，被告并未在任何宣传资料中作出观看无遮挡的承诺，没有故意告知虚假情况；原告购票时，座位尚未排定，现场舞台也未搭建完成，被告无法在当时就知晓原告的座位被遮挡，原告也不可能因受被告误导而购票。舞台搭建完成后，被告确实已经可以预见到有部分观众会受到承重柱的遮挡，但上海站为巡演的第一站，被告显然对受遮挡的程度以及观众可能的反应严重估计不足，现场虽有调换座位的预案，但安排的工作人员严重不足，无法满足实际需求，被告存在疏忽大意的过失更符合客观实际。因此，现有证据不足以达到排除合理怀疑的证明标准，难以认定被告构成欺诈。
2.被告的行为属于瑕疵履行，构成违约。原告购买了由被告举办的梁静茹演唱会的门票，双方建立服务合同关系，被告应全面履行义务。原告的观看视线受到承重柱的明显遮挡，已经超出一般心理预期。被告虽称原告可以通过大屏幕观看歌手表演，但大屏幕设置在舞台正面，而原告的座位在舞台对角线上，观看效果也欠佳。被告既没有提前主动告知原告其座位视线被遮挡，给予原告充分的知情权和选择权；也没能制定充分的预案，在现场主动为原告调换座位，消除不利影响。综上，被告在合同履行过程中提供的服务存在明显瑕疵，构成违约，应承担违约责任。
3.被告应承担减价退赔的违约责任。由于观众对于演唱会的体验是多方面的，不仅仅在于看，还在于听，在于感受，在于互动等。因此，虽然原告等人在全程观看演唱会的体验感上不尽如人意，但不足以认定被告构成根本违约，加之原告并未提前退场，故原告要求被告全额退款的请求，法院难以支持。鉴于演唱会已经结束，被告无法继续履行或者采取补救措施，故原告有权要求减少价款，被告应当退还部分票款。
关于退款比例，法院认为，应当根据被告的瑕疵履行对观众造成的影响大小确定。具体可以结合不同票价所承载的消费者对演唱会的期待值大小、承重柱对具体观众的遮挡程度等因素综合判定。根据一般消费者的心理，购买内场票的观众对于演唱会中近距离接触并与偶像互动等的期待值相对更高，因而对履行瑕疵的容忍义务也就更低。因此，在退款比例上，也应结合票价，采用阶梯式的退票比例。故法院根据本案中原告的实际情况，判令被告按单张票价420元、650元、910元的标准退还原告。
滑动查看中文版
Source: Shanghai Daily SHINE、 Minhang District People's Court
Edited by Wang Chenyi
Reviewed by Xu Leibing,Lin Xinyi,Chen Yiting