演唱会买到“柱子票”怎么办？法院判了！
双语君约 5 分钟去年，消费者倪某等9人以699元、999元、1299元等价格购买梁静茹上海演唱会门票，却买到“柱子票”，严重影响观看体验，于是将上海某演艺公司起诉至法院，请求“退一赔三”。
The organizer of Malaysian singer Fish Leong's Shanghai concert has been ordered to refund some ticket fees in tiers, with the maximum refund reaching 70 percent of the original price, after nine fans sued, claiming their views at the concert were blocked by pillars and demanding refunds, the Minhang District People's Court in Shanghai said in a ruling issued on Thursday.
in tiers /tɪə/：分层地，分级地
pillar /ˈpɪlə(r)/：柱子
6月20日，上海闵行区人民法院对这起案件进行了一审公开宣判：判令被告以阶梯式退票比例按单张票价420元、650元、910元的标准退还原告票款。
The nine plaintiffs, who purchased tickets ranging from 999 yuan (US$137.60) to 1,299 yuan to attend the concert on May 20 and 21, 2023, claimed that their views were obstructed by pillars surrounding the stage during the concert without being informed in advance, and they had failed to reach an agreement with the organizer on compensation.
plaintiff /ˈpleɪntɪf/：原告，起诉人
高价购票却遇“柱子票”
诉至法院请求“退一赔三”
原告认为被告对消费者存在欺诈行为，不仅应向原告返还票款，还应进行惩罚性赔偿，承担“退一赔三”的责任。
The nine plaintiffs demanded a refund of the original ticket price, along with punitive compensation amounting to three times the ticket cost. They contended that the organizer had failed to inform them beforehand of significant visual obstructions, accusing the defendant of fraudulent behavior and infringement of consumer rights.
punitive/ˈpjuːnətɪv/：惩罚性的
fraudulent /ˈfrɔːdʒələnt/：欺诈的
消费者有权要求商家承担
减价退赔的违约责任
被告售卖“柱子票”的行为尚未构成欺诈。
The court confirmed the plaintiffs' claim that their view was obstructed. However, the existing evidence was insufficient to exclude all reasonable doubts and was not enough to determine that the defendant committed fraud.
被告的行为属于瑕疵履行，构成违约。
The court believed that the defendant provided service that did not meet the agreement between the two parties, and there were obvious defects, constituting a breach of contract. Therefore, the defendant should bear the liability for breach of contract. liability /ˌlaɪəˈbɪləti/：（法律上应承担的）责任，义务
被告应承担减价退赔的违约责任。
Since the plaintiffs did not leave the venue immediately and thus rejected the defendant's defective performance, the court expressed difficulty in supporting the plaintiff's request for a full refund and believed that a partial refund could be requested instead.
In summary, the court's first instance judgment ruled that the defendant should refund the ticket prices to the nine plaintiffs according to a tiered refund ratio, based on the individual ticket prices of 420 yuan, 650 yuan, and 910 yuan.
推 荐 阅 读