You say that this matter is not bothered. Wang Fang bought four boxes of spicy crayfish online to greet her family for the New Year, but the courier was mistakenly claimed and eaten up by others due to the wrong mobile phone number. People don't compensate at all, it's really tearless!
On the eve of the Chinese New Year, Wang Fang noticed a popular pre-processed crayfish on the Internet, which has both spicy and garlic flavors, and can be eaten at home and slightly heated. Wang Fang roughly calculated, during the Spring Festival, his family of six people got together, plus his nephews and nephews will definitely come to visit after the holiday, after all, they can't come a few times a year, so they must be entertained. She knows the common preference of this group of children for the dinner table - spicy crayfish. So, Wang Fang decisively placed an order and bought 4 boxes, 4 boxes per box.
However, the long-awaited express has not yet arrived, and it is almost Chinese New Year's Eve. When purchasing, Wang Fang specially asked the merchant about the delivery time, and the merchant guaranteed to deliver it within 3 days at the latest. I didn't expect that 6 days have passed now. Wang Fang checked the logistics information on the Internet, but found that the system showed that the express had been signed. What's going on? I know I haven't received it yet? After careful inspection, it turned out that she accidentally made a mistake when filling in her mobile phone number, and the original tail number was 5315, but she filled in 5345.
There is a courier station in Wang Fang's community, and everyone is used to picking up the courier by themselves, which means that the person who mistakenly picked up her courier is likely to be a nearby resident. So, Wang Fang went to the post station to inquire, and learned that someone had indeed come to pick up four boxes of goods a few days ago, it was a woman in her fifties, wearing a hat and a mask, and it was late at that time, and the staff could not see her face clearly. Wang Fang decided to call the wrong mobile number to find out the details.
After Wang Fang explained the reason, the other party responded that he was not clear about the situation at the time, and specially called ** to the merchant for verification, and the merchant confirmed that it was Wang Fang's goods, so that she could eat it with confidence. Wang Fang's idea is very simple, since it is not your thing, it should be returned. However, the lady said that it was impossible to return the crayfish because the crayfish had already been eaten by their family. Wang Fang suddenly felt a little angry when she heard this, how can you eat something that is not yours casually? But the other party explained that she had repeatedly called ** to confirm but could not determine the identity of the sender, and that kind of food should not be left for a long time. This made Wang Fang feel quite speechless, she felt that since the other party ate the crayfish she bought, she should at least compensate her for the economic loss, that is, the 1,680 yuan spent on buying crayfish.
However, the woman has her own statement on compensation, she said that she is allergic to crayfish and will not spend 1,680 yuan to buy crayfish at all, so Wang Fang's request for compensation is like forced consumption for her, so she resolutely refuses to compensate. Encountering such a situation, Wang Fang was really speechless. The other party is unwilling to return the goods, refuse to compensate, and is even unwilling to come out in person to meet and negotiate. At present, Wang Fang said that the post station is assisting in coordinating this matter, and if the communication is fruitless, she does not rule out taking the first report. As for how will the law judge this incident?
At the legal level, we can imagine a similar situation: Ms. Li (instead of Wang Fang) has every legal basis to demand compensation from her neighbor Aunt Zhang (instead of Aunt Wang). Referring to the relevant provisions of China's Civil Code, as mentioned in Article 987, if the beneficiary knows or should know that there is no lawful basis for obtaining benefits, the injured party has the right to request it to return the income and compensate for the losses in accordance with the law. In this case, although Aunt Zhang mentioned that she received the courier notice and was confirmed by the merchant before picking up and eating the batch of lobsters, she should have a clear understanding of whether she actually purchased them. Therefore, when Ms. Li appeared as the actual purchaser of the lobsters and pointed out that the lobsters had been consumed by Aunt Zhang, Aunt Zhang's actions constituted unjust enrichment and she should bear the corresponding liability for compensation in accordance with the law.
As for the definition of the specific amount of compensation, Article 1184 of the Civil Code provides guidance. When it comes to property damages, they are usually calculated based on the market value at the time of the damage or other reasonable assessments. Ms. Li's claim that since the lobster has been eaten, Auntie Zhang should pay for the actual cost of the lobster's purchase is legally defensible and common sense.
In addition, Article 1173 of the Civil Code emphasizes the principle of reciprocity of rights and responsibilities, and if the infringed party is at fault in the process of the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the liability of the infringer can be appropriately reduced. In this case, Ms. Li was at fault for negligently filling in the wrong mobile phone number during the online shopping process, resulting in the delivery being mistakenly signed. Therefore, when calculating the amount of compensation, Ms. Li needs to bear the liability corresponding to her fault, which may reduce part of Aunt Zhang's liability for compensation.
What is your opinion on this? How much do you think is appropriate? Please leave a message to share and discuss.
Legal Tips] The plot and pictures of this article are all from Internet resources, which are intended to convey legal knowledge, and there is no vulgar and bad inducement. In case of copyright disputes or character infringement issues in actual cases, please give feedback in a timely manner, and we will quickly remove the relevant materials. This article is based on real events!