260,000 yuan of goods destroyed, the express company is only willing to pay 2,000 yuan
Shanghai Pudong Court ruled that the courier company should compensate 160,000 yuan for not fulfilling its obligation of reasonable reminder
□ Our reporter Yu Dongming
□ "Legal and News" reporter Huang Haodong
250 bottles of whisky with a unit price of over 1,000 were shipped from Shanghai to Guangdong. The vehicle caught fire and all the goods were damaged.
The express sender asked for full compensation, and the express company said that it could only compensate 2,000 yuan in accordance with the insured price clause.
Who is responsible for the loss?
Recently, the Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court made a first-instance judgment on this express service contract dispute, finding that the defendant, a courier company, failed to use a reasonable method to remind the sender to pay attention to the compensation limit clause, and judged it to compensate the plaintiff, a trading company, 160,000 yuan as appropriate.
Valuable cargo damaged in transit
In June 2021, a trading company of the plaintiff needed to ship 250 bottles of British imported whisky from Shanghai to Guangdong in order to fulfill the goods procurement contract with the customer.
Sun, an employee of the trading company, placed an order with the defendant, a courier company, online.
On the day of placing the order, Peng Mou, a courier of the express company, took the order and went to the warehouse where the trading company was located to sign for the whisky shipped and complete the collection. Sun Mou paid a total of 980 yuan for freight and 16 yuan for insurance to the express company through WeChat.
However, a few days after the goods were collected, the recipient contacted the trading company and said that he had not received the goods, and the express logistics information still remained in the link where the goods were delivered the next day after the order was placed, and was never updated.
Sun immediately contacted the courier company. After inquiries, the staff told Sun that the truck carrying the goods sent by Sun collided with other vehicles and caught fire on the way from Shanghai to Jiangxi the next day after placing the order. The goods, including bottles of whisky, were all damaged.
According to the goods purchase contract signed by the trading company as Party A and Party B, if the goods are not delivered to the customer within the specified time limit, or if any problems such as damage, loss or deterioration occur, Party A shall refund Party B the total amount of more than 260,000 yuan. Yuan, and an additional compensation of 50,000 Yuan for liquidated damages to Party B.
The trading company believes that the reason for its failure to perform the goods purchase contract is that the courier company has an accident during the delivery of the goods, which causes the goods to be damaged. Therefore, after the trading company completes the refund and compensation to Party B, it proposes to the courier company the payment for the goods and compensation in A total of more than 310,000 yuan in compensation claims.
However, the courier company believes that the goods are lost due to accidents during transportation. This general risk is unavoidable, and Mr. Sun checked the insured price clause in the "Electronic Waybill Contract Clause" in the interface by default when placing an order. Therefore, The courier company can only compensate Sun 2,000 yuan according to the insured price, and return the 996 yuan courier fee actually paid by Sun.
If the expensive whisky was accidentally burned to the ground, should it be compensated in full or according to the insured price?
The trading company and the courier company had a dispute over this issue. In the end, the trading company took the courier company to court in January this year, requesting the Pudong court to order the courier company to return the freight of 996 yuan, and order the other party to compensate the value of the goods and the total loss of 318,380.74 yuan. Yuan.
Courier company insists on insured price compensation
After the case was filed in January 2022, the Pudong Court conducted a public hearing of the case by applying the summary procedure in accordance with the law.
During the trial, the plaintiff and the defendant expressed their respective opinions on the two main points of contention, "whether the trading company is a qualified subject of the case" and "whether the express company applies the insured compensation clause to make compensation".
The defendant argued in the trial that the express sender involved in this case was not the plaintiff's trading company, but Mr. Sun, and the plaintiff was not a qualified subject of the case, so he could not claim compensation from the express company.
In addition, the defendant also pointed out that the occurrence of traffic accidents during express delivery is a common risk in the entire express delivery industry, and the defendant has no major fault in the damage to Sun's goods caused by accidental traffic accidents during transportation.
The defendant charged 996 yuan for freight, but had to bear the risk of compensation worth more than 300,000 yuan to the plaintiff, which obviously violated the principle of fairness.
The plaintiff’s trading company stated that the express sender, Mr. Sun, was an employee of the trading company, and the purpose of placing the order was to fulfill the company’s goods procurement contract, not a personal act, and the trading company had the right to demand compensation from the defendant.
According to Sun's memory, when he placed an online order in June 2021, he did not check "read and agree to the terms of the electronic waybill contract", nor did he enter the insured amount.
In this regard, the defendant express company stated that Sun had checked the button "Agree to the terms and not prompt again" during the shipping operation before sending the express delivery involved, so in the process of placing an order later, the system It is assumed that Sun has checked the insured service, but Sun can still click the "Electronic Waybill Contract Terms" button to view the content of the terms, or re-declare the price of the goods and change the insured amount.
Therefore, the defendant believes that in this case, when Sun delivered whisky in June 2021, the applet interface required that all large items need to be insured, and the default minimum insured amount was 2,000 yuan, but Sun did not change the price and insured amount of whisky, and The amount selected by the system by default was used, so the courier company could only compensate Sun for 2,000 yuan based on the insured amount determined at that time.
Both parties to the contract shall be liable
After investigation and trial, the Pudong Court held that the sender, Mr. Sun, was a staff member of a trading company, and it was an act of duty to mail the whisky used to perform the contract. The whisky that was burned in this case belonged to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff’s trading company was identified as the case. Eligible subject.
In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant have formed a courier service contract relationship. The courier company has the obligation to properly keep the goods and deliver the goods safely to the designated recipients. If the goods in stock are damaged in transit and cannot complete the delivery, the courier company should pay compensation. responsibility.
The court pointed out that the compensation limit clause involved in this case is a standard clause, and the express company, as the provider of the standard clause, should take a reasonable approach to remind the other party to pay attention to the clause that has a major interest in it.
The defendant's online program found that Sun had checked the terms and no longer popped up the terms reminder by default, and did not fulfill the obligation to inform, and the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that he had used a reasonable method to remind the plaintiff to pay attention to the terms. Therefore, the court held that The indemnity limit clause in this case cannot be the content of the express service contract.
In addition, the plaintiff's trading company, as a business enterprise, should truthfully inform the defendant of the value of the goods when delivering high-value goods, and choose a type of service with higher security, but the employees of the plaintiff's trading company did not fulfill the requirement of informing the value of the consignment. A contract is accompanied by obligations and should also bear certain responsibilities.
To sum up, the court determined that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the loss of 160,000 yuan, and return the plaintiff 980 yuan of freight and 16 yuan of insurance costs based on factors such as the degree of fault of both parties and the performance of the contract.
"In this case, the consumer did not inform the actual value of the goods, and the express delivery company did not clearly indicate the standard terms, but directly checked the terms for the consumer by default, and both parties bear certain responsibilities." The presiding judge of the case, Chen Yijiao, said.
"But no matter what the situation is, the courier company has the obligation to ensure the safety and timely delivery of the sender's goods."