Mr. Chen said that he used the courier company's app to place an order and mail a mobile phone, but the recipient did not receive it, and the courier company informed him that the shipment was lost. As the negotiation of compensation failed, Mr. Chen sued the Haidian Court. After trial, the Haidian court comprehensively considered the factors such as Mr. Chen's failure to inform the courier of the value of the consignment and his failure to choose the insured price, and ruled that the courier company should refund the freight of 13 yuan and compensate for the loss of 91 yuan.
The plaintiff, Mr. Chen, claimed that the recipient entrusted him to purchase a mobile phone, which was sent out at the express delivery point on January 19, 2020 after placing an order on the express company's app, and the express company informed him that it had been signed for delivery on January 25. However, on January 30, the recipient informed him that he had not received it, and on February 3, the courier company informed Mr. Chen that the shipment was lost.
According to Article 21 of the Interim Regulations on Express Delivery, Mr. Chen did not declare the value of the items sent, and the express company could not identify it, and according to the terms of the electronic waybill contract, the uninsured express mail could be compensated up to seven times the freight rate, which was bolded, clearly prompted and clearly displayed on the page, so the express company agreed to refund the freight of 13 yuan and compensate according to 7 times the freight fee, and did not agree to other compensation.
After the trial, the court held that Mr. Chen had established a contract of carriage with the express company. Mr. Chen's claim for the loss of the consignment was recognized by the courier company, and the courier company should be liable for the loss of the consignment.
Mr. Chen claimed that the consignment he sent was a mobile phone, but he failed to submit valid evidence to prove that the money he paid was related to the lost shipment, and could not prove the actual value of the mailed goods.
Mr. Chen did not insure the value of the express mail involved in the case. According to the "Terms and Conditions of Contract of the e-Waybill" provided by the courier company on its APP, there is a clear difference in the compensation rules when the customer has been clearly reminded in red that the customer has not selected the insured price and has chosen the insured price and paid the insured price. In the follow-up order page, the customer is also reminded again in the form of "attention" in red font that if the ordinary items that are not insured are lost or damaged, they will be compensated within 7 times the freight, and the items worth more than 1,000 yuan are recommended to be insured.
The court comprehensively considered that Mr. Chen did not inform the courier of the value of the consignment at the time of mailing, did not choose the insured price, and the courier company agreed to refund the freight and compensate seven times the freight, and ordered the courier company to refund the freight of 13 yuan and compensate 91 yuan. The verdict is now in force.
The judge said: With the rapid development of the express delivery industry, the volume of express delivery has surged, and the damage and loss of express delivery have also plagued consumers and express delivery companies.
The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the carrier shall be liable for compensation, but the carrier shall not be liable for the damage or loss of the goods due to force majeure, the natural nature of the goods themselves or reasonable wear and tear, or the fault of the shipper or consignee. As for the amount of compensation, if the parties have agreed, it shall be agreed;If there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear and cannot be determined, it shall be calculated according to the market ** of the place where the goods arrive at the time of delivery or should be delivered. The "Interim Regulations on Express Delivery" stipulates that if the express mail is delayed, lost, damaged or the contents are short, the liability for the insured express mail shall be determined in accordance with the insurance rules agreed between the express delivery enterprise and the senderFor uninsured shipments, it shall be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of civil law.
For the cargo information, the sender has the obligation to declare it truthfully. The Civil Code stipulates that the shipper has the obligation to truthfully declare the name, nature, weight and quantity of the goods, and the Interim Regulations on Express Delivery further stipulate that the sender shall make a declaration in advance when handing over valuables.
Generally, express delivery companies mostly use clauses such as "uninsured goods are only compensated within the scope of three times (seven times, etc.) freight" on documents such as "express service contract" and "electronic waybill contract clause", which are usually regarded as standard clauses according to the provisions of articles 496 and 497 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. Where standard clauses are used to conclude a contract, the party providing the standard clauses shall determine the rights and obligations between the parties in accordance with the principle of fairness, and draw the attention of the other party to the clauses exempting or limiting its liability in a reasonable manner, and explain the clauses in accordance with the requirements of the other party. If the party providing the standard clause exempts its liability, increases the liability of the other party, restricts the main rights of the other party, or excludes the main rights of the other party, the clause shall be invalid.
Article 10 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the General Principles of Contracts of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, which came into effect on December 5, 2023, further clarifies that the party providing the standard clauses shall provide evidence to prove that it has fulfilled its obligation to prompt or explain. The obligation to remind the other party is to use words, symbols, fonts and other obvious signs that are usually sufficient to attract the attention of the other party at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and remind the other party to pay attention to abnormal clauses that have a major interest in the other party, such as exempting or reducing its liability, excluding or restricting the rights of the other party;The obligation to explain refers to the fact that, at the request of the other party, it makes an explanation to the other party in writing or orally on the concept, content and legal consequences of the abnormal clause in which the other party has a major interestIf it is asserted solely on the grounds that they have already performed their obligation to provide a reminder or an obligation to explain on the grounds that they have already performed the obligation to give a reminder or an obligation to explain on the grounds that they have adopted methods such as setting up checks or pop-up windows, the people's court will not support it, unless they have presented evidence to prove that they have fulfilled their obligations to explain and provide for the reminder as provided for in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, it is very important for the express company to remind and explain the insurance rules to the sender, otherwise it may be found invalid because of its insurance rules to reduce their own liability and increase the liability of the other party.
The judge hereby reminded that when the express company concludes the contract of carriage, it is not enough to only set up the insurance clause on the electronic waybill and pop-up window, but should follow the provisions of laws, regulations and judicial interpretations to use obvious signs such as red, bold, underlined and other words, symbols, fonts and other obvious signs that are enough to attract the attention of the other party, and the courier should explain the shipping insurance rules according to the sender's requirements. Express companies should strengthen the obligation to remind and explain the insurance rules, so as to better reduce the risk of compensation for damage and loss of consignments.
When choosing express delivery to transport goods, consumers should truthfully inform and declare the name and value of the consignment to the express company, pay attention to preserving the evidence of mailing and communication, and avoid the inability to obtain the support of the court due to the inability to determine the actual value of the consignment after a disputeIt is necessary to pay special attention to whether there is a clearly marked insurance clause in the contract clause, if the mail is valuables, you can choose the insurance service to avoid small losses, and it is difficult to obtain the compensation equivalent to the value of the consignment when it is lost.
All names have been changed).