Let's review the history of this lawsuit. Jiang stayed in Weibo in May, 2065438. The newspaper published a statement saying that due to cooperation and personal character development, he wanted to set up his own studio to develop independently and proposed to cancel the contract with the company. On the same day, he also issued a statement saying that the company complained that its development required a lot of manpower and financial resources, and it was carefully trained. The performing arts career has also been carefully planned and arranged. Jiang announced the termination of the contract without prior communication and consultation. After the statements of both parties, Jiang continued to carry out the performing arts business, and Huaman Company mainly maintained the legal effect of the contract through the court.
So from the published judgment, who is right and who is wrong? Jiang said that the contract signed by both parties is an entrustment contract, and it has the right to terminate the contract unilaterally. However, the court held that the two parties signed a manager contract, which is a comprehensive contract, including entrustment, punishment, intermediary, labor, copyright and other legal relations. Therefore, the relevant provisions on unilaterally dissolving the entrustment contract cannot be applied. Therefore, naturally, Jiang has no right to unilaterally terminate the contract, and unilateral termination has no legal effect. Jiang also claimed that Tang Dynasty Company defaulted on performance pay.
The behavior of Tangren Company constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. Jiang has the right to terminate the contract. Jiang also claimed that due to the reputation lawsuit between the company and Jiang, the company and Jiang lost their trust in Tangren Company, so he had reason to terminate the contract. However, the evidence provided by Jiang Company is a blow to all the claims of the company. Except that the so-called "trust" between the two parties cannot be proved by evidence, other claims are either unsupported by evidence or just minor problems. It is not a fundamental breach of contract and does not affect the overall situation. According to the judgment, the brokerage company has to pay a lot of time and business costs for artists from unknown newcomers to celebrities with certain popularity and influence. Artists play a vital role in training, publicity, planning, promotion and popularity, and should not be given the right to unilaterally terminate the brokerage contract.
This judgment is based on a wide range of artists, which may sound uncomfortable, especially those arrogant young stars who always think that their ability and charm lead to their success and reputation. If you feel the climate, you can kick out the brokerage company at will. The judgment and opinion of the court can be said to be clear. Although the artist can choose to terminate the contract with the brokerage company under certain conditions, if your lack of trust is not conducive to personal development, you must have a legitimate reason. Instead of leaving at will, I think this decision will make more stars pay more attention to the seriousness of brokerage contracts and reassure artists who sign contracts with brokerage companies. I think this judgment has a positive impact on the whole industry.