Lufa case [2024] 016
Image source network invasion and deletion)
Online shopping has become an indispensable part of people's daily life, and damage to online shopping goods in transit occurs from time to time, so can the "Disclaimer Statement" signed by the shipper and the express company be exempted from the liability of the express company? Take a look at the example below.
Brief facts of the case
Li bought an LCD TV online, and because he found that the picture quality was not clear, he contacted the merchant to return it. Li placed an order through a courier company's applet, and handed over the TV set involved in the case to the courier company to transport and return to the merchant. The courier company will carry it after inspection, and Li will pay the freight.
When sending the mail, the courier of the express company showed Li a "Express Security Disclaimer Letter" (hereinafter referred to as the "Disclaimer Letter") and asked him to sign. The main content of the "Disclaimer Statement" is: "Due to the particularity of our consignment and packaging plan, it is very easy to be damaged during transportation. We are well aware of the above risks and are willing to bear the above risks so that you can provide delivery services with peace of mind. In order to realize the delivery of the consignment by our company and not cause your company to suffer improper losses due to the delivery of the consignment of Party A, after fair and friendly negotiation, our company does not claim any compensation and liability for breach of contract from your company on this ground: in the process of transportation and distribution, if there is a damage problem, we will not be liable for compensation (including claims and refunds of freight and value-added service fees)".
The item was shipped to the merchant, who found that the corners of the TV screen were damaged after inspection and refused to receive the item. After negotiation, the courier company shipped the TV back to Li. When Li received the mail, he found that the TV screen was completely damaged and could not be used, so he contacted the customer service of the courier company to ask for compensation. The courier company refused to compensate on the grounds that Li had signed a disclaimer. Li sued the court and requested: 1Confirm that the Disclaimer Letter is invalid; 2.The courier company was ordered to pay compensation for the loss of 143565 yuan.
Heard by the courts
After trial, the court held that Li and the express company had signed the "Express Service Agreement", which was legal and valid, and the two parties had established a contract relationship for express service. In the performance of the contract, Mr. Li paid the freight to the courier company as agreed, and the courier company also inspected and carried the goods. The courier company is obliged to deliver the consignment safely to the agreed place and to the designated recipient.
In this case, the courier company involved in the case delivered the LCD TV to the recipient (merchant) and was rejected by the merchant due to damage, at which point it could prove that it failed to fulfill its duty of care and care for the goods during transportation, and was at fault for the damage to the goods. At the same time, when the goods were transported back to Li, there was a more serious secondary damage. It is sufficient to prove that the express company was grossly negligent in the process of carriage and failed to fulfill the basic safety protection obligations for the goods, causing serious damage to Li's property.
According to the provisions of Article 506, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, if the property loss of the other party is caused by intentional or gross negligence, the exemption clause in the contract shall be invalid. Therefore, in this case, although Li signed a disclaimer letter with the express company, and the express company also fulfilled its obligation to prompt and explain the exemption clause, due to the gross negligence of the express company in the process of carriage, which caused serious damage to Li's property, the disclaimer statement letter should be found to be invalid, and the express company should be liable for the loss of Li's property. The court upheld Li's claim.
What the judge said
With the rapid development of e-commerce in China, online shopping has become an indispensable part of people's daily life. Behind every online shopping transaction is inseparable from the support of the express logistics industry. There is no doubt that the prosperity of the e-commerce industry has led to the growth of the express logistics industry. How to provide consumers with convenient, fast, safe and efficient express delivery services, so that people can shop and consume through the Internet more at ease and with more peace of mind, is not only related to the healthy development of express delivery services and e-commerce industry, but also closely related to the quality of life of the people.
In this case, out of trust in a courier company, Mr. Li handed over the LCD TV involved in the case to the courier company for carriage, and as a professional courier company, he was well aware of the characteristics of the LCD TV as a fragile item, and signed a "Disclaimer Letter" with Mr. Li in order to avoid its own risks. The express company caused different degrees of damage to the goods during the two transportation processes, and it can be determined that the express company did not fulfill its basic safety protection obligations for the goods, and there was obvious gross negligence. In this case, if it is exempted from liability for compensation in accordance with the "Disclaimer Letter", then in the future express delivery business, ignoring the safety of the goods, not packaging the goods as required, rough loading and unloading of the goods, etc., resulting in the damage of the goods will lack necessary regulations, which is very easy to produce moral hazard, which is not conducive to the supervision and management of the express delivery market, and is not conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of users. In this case, the provisions of Article 506, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China were applied in accordance with the law, and it was determined that the invalidity of the disclaimer involved in the case could not only avoid the above-mentioned risks, ensure the quality and safety of express delivery services, but also promote the healthy development of the express delivery industry.
Links to legal provisions
Article 506 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of ChinaThe following exemption clauses in the contract are invalid: (2) the property damage of the other party is caused intentionally or by gross negligence.
Article 832 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of ChinaThe carrier shall be liable for compensation for the damage or loss of the goods during transportation. However, if the carrier proves that the damage or loss of the goods is caused by force majeure, the natural attributes of the goods themselves or reasonable wear and tear, or the fault of the shipper or consignee, the carrier shall not be liable for compensation.
*: Zaozhuang Intermediate Court.
Disclaimer: **This article is for the purpose of conveying more information and facilitating the popularization of law. If there is a ** marking error or infringement of your legitimate rights and interests, please contact Qinghai Law Popularization with the ownership certificate, and we will correct and delete it in time, thank you.