On December 24, the Baoshan District People's Court of Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as “Baoshan Court”) recently heard a service contract dispute due to a live broadcast tape or a service contract dispute.
AI Finance & Economic News learned that in July 2020, a skincare company signed an agreement with a brokerage company stating that “since Party B plans to host an event with Guangdong's god and director Wang, Party A intends to entrust Party B to promote the product designated by Party A through a designated event”. The designated product is an amino acid cleansing honey, and the service fee (tax included) is 8,2,820 yuan. The agreement specifies the talent information “Nickname: A God from Guangdong, Live Partner: Director Wang”.
After the skincare company paid the promotion service fee according to the contract, the brokerage company signed a “cooperative promotion agreement” with a network technology company, agreeing that the network technology company would arrange live streaming sales activities, and the network technology company would charge 53,000 yuan (tax included) for the promotion service.
However, on the evening of one day in July, the network technology company arranged for “Guangdong Mushen”, the anchor with 10 million fans on a certain platform, director Wang did not appear, and the final sales of the product were also very bleak. It was only 6 bottles totaling more than 800 yuan.
The skincare company believes that the brokerage company transferred matters agreed upon by the two parties to a third party without their consent, and did not communicate with them in advance during the product promotion period and did not arrange for Wang to appear. As a result, the sales volume of the product was only 6 bottles. The skincare company sued the brokerage company in court and requested the agency to pay compensation for corresponding losses, including the original promotion fee of 82,820 yuan, plus other losses totaling more than 97,000 yuan.
During the trial, the agency stated that it had arranged a live broadcast promotion event in accordance with the agreement, and that the agreement had been fulfilled. However, the promotion period and sales volume were not agreed upon in the agreement between the two parties. Regarding the issue of director Wang not appearing, the two parties only agreed that the live broadcast partner would be Wang, and that the partner was a team member. They only needed to participate in the work related to the live broadcast promotion campaign; they did not have to appear.
The internet tech company also disagreed with the skincare company's lawsuit. The network technology company has completed live promotion of the product in accordance with the agreement with the defendant's agency, and showed a warm-up video recorded by Wang before the live broadcast event began in court, proving that Wang participated in the live broadcast promotion campaign as a live streaming partner, and created publicity for this a few days before the promotion campaign.
After the trial, the Baoshan court found that the agreed live streaming sales campaign had actually been completed, and that the agency's actions were only to fulfill the flaws; it was enough to refund part of the promotion service fee to the skincare company as compensation. Based on the actual circumstances of this case, the court determined that the brokerage company should pay compensation to the skincare company for various litigation costs totaling more than 35,000 yuan. (Article | AI Finance & Economic News Agency has no regrets)