Hao Hao lighting Fan Bingbing accused of breach of contract was awarded 400 thousand

That Fan Bingbing violated the endorsement contract, Guangdong juhao Lighting Electrical Appliance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as juhao company) Fan Bingbing and the Beijing Maestro arts culture media Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Maestro) to court, request a refund of the endorsement fee of 910 thousand yuan. During the trial, the company filed a huge Maestro company postponed advertising, counterclaim claims 2 million 200 thousand yuan. Reporters learned yesterday, Chaoyang Court part of the support of the appeal of Maestro, the decision of the company to compensate its huge fine liquidated damages 400 thousand yuan.

The plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim) juhao company alleged that in June 16, 2009, the company signed a contract with Fan Bingbing, Maestro, Fan Bingbing agreed to juhao lighting, bath products, endorsement, endorsement period of 24 months, the endorsement fee of 2 million 200 thousand yuan, the endorsement activities for Fan Bingbing filming a television advertising for the company, a plane advertisement and attendance 4 product promotional activities, and television and print advertising photography agreement no later than July 15, 2009.

Juhao company said Fan Bingbing, breach of contract, the commercials delayed more than half a year, the company lost 180 thousand yuan, it should return the endorsement fee of 1/3 or 730 thousand yuan; the other Fan Bingbing did not participate in the 4 campaign, the company lost 730 thousand yuan, Fan Bingbing and Maestro company to refund 910 thousand yuan.

In this regard, Fan Bingbing argued that he was not the main contract, the case is not suitable for the defendant.

Maestro company argued that the juhao company is inconsistent with the facts, and filed a counterclaim that the endorsement contract expires, the company still use juhao Fan Bingbing endorsement advertising, the counterclaim request juhao company 2 million 200 thousand yuan compensation for liquidated damages.

According to the counterclaim, juhao company said the company's counterclaim should be based on Tao Fan Bingbing authorized, but Fan Bingbing had been in tort litigation, according to the "idem" principle, Maestro company has no right to counterclaim.

Chaoyang Court found that both sides of the original defendant endorsement contract, agreed to be agreed by Fan Bingbing himself to fulfill the content of the contract, it should be considered as one of the parties to the contract of Fan Bingbing.

With regard to the issue of delayed shooting, it is difficult to identify the breach of the contract between Fan Bingbing and Maestro because of the fact that the company is unable to prove that it has fulfilled its obligation to attend the written notice. About Fan Bingbing did not attend the product promotion activities, the court held that the contract is the core Fan Bingbing filmed for television and print ads for specific products juhao company, not to attend the activities do not affect Fan Bingbing as juhao spokesperson for the achievement of company related products.

Chaoyang Court finally ruled part of the support of the demands of Maestro, sentenced to 400 thousand yuan to pay the huge Hao company liquidated damages Maestro.