Guangzhou Fang Nai Smashed Millions Of Heavy Female Star Endorsement Underwear Default Compensation 300 Thousand Yuan

A few years ago, Guangzhou underwear company Fang Nai smashed millions of money to invite Hongkong stars.

Do image endorsement.

However, Irene Wan and his two sides broke the gap and finally came to court.

Although Irene Wan claims to have been "fishing for evidence", the Guangzhou intermediate court recently decided that Irene Wan would indeed constitute a breach of contract and should return some of the activities for 300 thousand yuan.

Contract expiration merchant claim 350 thousand

Guangzhou Fang Nai Garments Co., Ltd. is a major underwear brand company.

According to the court, in 2005, the company signed a cooperation agreement with Guangzhou Tian Bo Culture Communication Co., Ltd.

The two sides agreed that Irene Wan, an artist of Tian Bo company, was filming for Fang Fang's brand name, Nair.

。

According to the agreement, Fang Nai company should pay an exclusive endorsement fee of 1 million yuan, while Irene Wan is responsible for photographing a print advertisement, a video advertisement and two activities. The term of endorsement is two years.

If Irene Wan is unable to come for objective reasons, he will have to negotiate ten days in advance and pay 10% according to the contract.

After signing the contract, Fang Na company paid the cost, and Irene Wan also completed the advertising shoot.

However, the company held a business meeting and a party, hoping that Irene Wan would attend, but she did not come.

The contract expires on 2012.

Tian Bo offered to renew the contract and said that because Irene Wan was absent from the two events, he concession on the price and cost.

However, Fang Nai came to a big "face" and sent a lawyer's letter directly, saying that he did not agree to the conditions of renewal. He demanded that Tian Bo company return the activity fee of 300 thousand yuan, and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the court, plus a compensation of 50 thousand yuan for economic losses.

Irene Wan appeals that businesses set up

In the trial, Fang Nai company provided proof that Irene Wan had absences two times due to the conflict of the schedule.

Although Irene Wan denied the case, he could not provide the cause for exemption.

Therefore, the first instance of Baiyun District Court held that, in the case of effective contract, Irene Wan's absence constitutes a breach of contract and should be returned to the corresponding agency fee of 300 thousand yuan.

However, the company's request for compensation for economic losses of 50 thousand yuan, the court held that there is no evidence that no support.

After the sentence, Irene Wan refused to accept the appeal.

Irene Wan said that the "contract renewal" provided by Fang Nai company was operated by Tian Bo company and was not authorized or approved by the company.

It believed that Fang Na company drafted a renewal contract and deliberately set up a trap for obtaining evidence. In order to promote the renewal of contract, Tian Bo was caught in the trap of complying with the requirements of Fang Nai company.

Irene Wan said that Fang Nai not only failed to collect evidence, but also had two activities that were not credible. Even if there were two activities, she was not obliged to take part in activities that had nothing to do with brand management.

However, these arguments were not recognized by the court of second instance.

The Guangzhou intermediate people's court believes there is no evidence to confirm that.

During the agreed time to attend two events organized by Fang Nai company, the cost should be returned and the decision to maintain the original sentence was made recently.