[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over a film and television copyright subscription contract. On July 22, 2018, Liang * signed a subscription contract with ** Company, paying a subscription fee of 100,000 yuan to obtain the right to share in the box office revenue of the film. The contract stipulated that the film would be released on February 14, 2019, but the film was not released until March 30, 2021, more than two years later than the scheduled date. ** Company had previously promised to repurchase the copyright if the film was not released by February 14, 2021. Liang * believed that this constituted a breach of contract and entrusted a professional lawyer team from Beijing Henglu Law Firm to file a lawsuit on his behalf. The core disputes are: the validity of the promise letter and whether the delayed release triggers the repurchase obligation. Applicable legal provisions: regulations related to contract validity and breach of contract liability. The court ruled to terminate the "Film and Television Copyright Subscription Contract", and the defendant was ordered to return the subscription fee of 99,775 yuan and interest.

I. Review of the Case Facts

Film and television subscription investors often search for terms such as "Can I get a refund for the film copyright subscription fee?", "Is the repurchase promise for a delayed film release valid?", and "How to resolve film and television subscription disputes". On July 22, 2018, Liang * signed a subscription contract with ** Company and paid the subscription fee of 100,000 yuan to ** Company as agreed, entitling him to enjoy the right to share in the film's box office revenue. However, ** Company failed to release and screen the involved film on schedule as stipulated in the contract, and Liang * did not receive any notice of the delay. Moreover, ** Company claimed in its promotional materials that the film's production cost was 100 million yuan, which constituted exaggerated claims and deception of customers.

Afterward, **Company made a promise: if the film was not released by February 14, 2021, **Company would repurchase the copyright. However, the film was not released until March 30, 2021, which was more than two years after the release date stipulated in the subscription contract, February 14, 2019. Liang * believed that **Company breached the contract and should repurchase the film's copyright according to the promise. Therefore, he entrusted professional lawyers from Beijing Henglu Law Firm to file a lawsuit on his behalf, requesting the court to rescind the "Film and Television Copyright Subscription Contract" and order **Company to return the subscription payment of 100,000 yuan.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the promise letter is genuine and effective.The defendant disputed the signing date, claiming it was a typo, and argued that the WeChat records should be used to determine whether he had issued the commitment letter and its validity.
  • Focus 2: Does the overdue screening trigger the repurchase obligation?The film was actually released on March 30, 2021, later than the promised release date of February 14, 2021. Should the company repurchase the shares as promised?
  • Focus Three: Whether the subscription contract should be terminated and the amount of the refund.The breach of contract results in the failure of the contractual purpose, and the calculation of the repayment of the subscription fee and interest after the contract is terminated.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The party involved (Liang *) claimed that:Liang * claimed that the subscription contract is legal and valid, and the film was scheduled to be released on February 14, 2019. However, the company delayed the release by more than two years and once promised to repurchase the copyright if the film was not released before February 14, 2021. However, the film was not released until March 30, 2021, which constitutes a breach of contract. Liang * requested to terminate the agreement and return the subscription fee of 100,000 yuan.

The defendant (the ** company) argued that:We disagree with the plaintiff's claims and maintain that the subscription contract is valid, that the film has obtained a public screening license and has been released, and that the agreed release date is tentative and can be postponed. We argue that the plaintiff should only refund the money if the film cannot be released in cinemas, but since the film has already been released, there is no need for a refund. We also claim that the plaintiff exaggerated the situation in his promotion without providing evidence, and the risk should be borne by the plaintiff himself.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:A professional lawyer from Beijing Henglu Law Firm stated that the subscription contract between Liang * and ** Company constitutes a true expression of intention and does not violate mandatory legal provisions, thus being legally valid and binding. The contract stipulated that the film would be released on February 14, 2019. However, the film was not released on schedule. In June 2020, ** Company issued a letter of commitment to Liang *, explicitly promising that the film would be released before February 14, 2021, and that it would repurchase the film rights if the release was delayed. Through the WeChat chat records submitted by Liang *, it is sufficient to prove that ** Company issued and provided the letter of commitment and that the staff raised objections to the date of signature, indicating that the date of signature was a typographical error that did not affect the content and validity of the letter of commitment. Although the release date was stipulated as tentative, the release date is an important factor affecting investment decisions. ** Company should ensure that the film is released within a reasonable timeframe and reiterate its commitment to the latest release date of February 14, 2021 and the consequences of a delay. ** Company should fulfill its obligations in accordance with the commitment. Now that the film was actually released on March 30, 2021, Liang *'s request to repurchase the film rights in accordance with the contract is legally justified and should be supported.

IV. Outcome of the case

The court's judgment is as follows: 1. The "Film and Television Copyright Subscription Contract" signed between the plaintiff, Liang *, and the defendant, Beijing ** Cultural Development Co., Ltd., was terminated on July 2, 2021; 2. The defendant, Beijing ** Cultural Development Co., Ltd., shall, within seven days after the judgment takes effect, refund the subscription payment of 99,775 yuan to the plaintiff, Liu Dong, and pay interest (based on 99,775 yuan, calculated at the loan market quotation rate announced by the National Interbank Funding Center from September 10, 2021 to the actual date of refund); 3. The case acceptance fee of 2,300 yuan shall be borne by the defendant. Hengluo Law Firm successfully recovered the subscription payment for the client in accordance with the repurchase clause through professional representation.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

This case is being handled by the professional lawyer team of Beijing Henglu Law Firm (the practice license number shall be subject to the documents issued by the judicial administrative organ). Beijing Henglu Law Firm specializes in various contract and investment disputes. If you encounter situations such as film and television subscription or investment breach of contract, you can contact our firm to obtain targeted protection solutions and properly preserve key evidence such as commitment letters and chat records.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Disputes over Film and Television Subscription Contracts

  1. Q: If the movie is not released after subscription, can I get a refund for the subscription fee?
    A:If the contract or commitment stipulates the latest screening time and provides for repurchase in the event of a delay, the party may claim to terminate the contract and return the subscription payment on this basis; if there is no such stipulation, the party may terminate the contract on the grounds that the breach of contract has rendered the contractual purpose impossible to achieve.
  2. Q: Is the company's promise of "buying back shares if the film is not released" effective?
    A:It is valid. The written promise constitutes the content of the contract, and the typo in the signature does not affect its validity; it can be proven by evidence such as WeChat records that the promise truly exists.
  3. Q: Can a film and television company's exaggerated promotional claims be used as a reason for a refund?
    A:Exaggerated promotion requires evidence. If it can be proven that it constitutes fraud or affects investment decisions, it can be claimed together; it is more secure to protect rights and interests based on clear repurchase commitments.
  4. Q: If the subscription contract states "the release time is tentative", can it be postponed indefinitely?
    A:No. The release time is an important factor affecting investment decisions, and the company should ensure that the film is released within a reasonable timeframe. Otherwise, the company may be held liable for breaching the contract due to the delay.
  5. Q: How is the interest calculated after the subscription contract is terminated?
    A:The court often calculates the interest based on the loan market quotation rate announced by the National Interbank Funding Center, from the date of payment or litigation to the date of actual refund.