[2] Shunxing Company (pseudonym) is an enterprise primarily engaged in cargo agency services. In May 2017, Shunxing signed cargo transport contracts with Shenyi Company (pseudonym) and Zhongguang Company (pseudonym) respectively. Subsequently, Shunxing entrusted the goods of both companies to Dafa Company (pseudonym) for actual carriage. Unfortunately, a fire occurred during transport, resulting in the total destruction of all entrusted goods. The value of Shenyi's damaged goods was 177 yuan, and Zhongguang's was 2 yuan, totaling 180 yuan.

[3] After the incident, Shenyi filed a lawsuit against Shunxing in court, demanding compensation of 177 yuan for its cargo loss. Shunxing's boss, Sun, was indignant—his company had even advanced tens of thousands of yuan in freight for Shenyi, which remained unpaid. He argued that the accident was not caused by his company, and the hefty compensation should not be borne by them. Through extensive consultation, Sun contacted the Wang Tengfeng Artistic Litigation Team of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, known for handling complex and significant cases.

[4] After accepting Shunxing's mandate, the Wang Tengfeng Artistic Litigation Team (including Director Wang Tengfeng, Lawyer Zhang Yong, and Lawyer Guo Yixuan) held detailed discussions with the client, understanding Shunxing's unfavorable position. Director Wang, Lawyer Zhang, and Lawyer Guo collaboratively devised several strategies to safeguard the client's maximum interests under any circumstances. With Shunxing's obligation to compensate Shenyi 177 yuan for cargo loss becoming inevitable, the team swiftly shifted litigation strategy to reverse Shunxing's impending heavy losses. They filed a lawsuit against the actual carrier, Dafa Company, demanding that Dafa assume liability for breach of the transport contract and compensate Shunxing for the 180 yuan payable to Shenyi and Zhongguang due to the accident.

[5] In court, both sides engaged in heated debate over the actual compensation amount for the damaged goods. The defendant's lawyer argued for compensation limited to three times the freight. The Wang Tengfeng team firmly pointed out that the transport terms on the back of the cargo consignment note signed between Dafa and Shunxing constituted standard terms. As the carrier, Dafa had stipulated limitations to reduce or exempt its liability, but the consignment note showed that Dafa failed to reasonably draw the other party's attention to these terms. Therefore, the compensation limitation clause in the transport terms should be deemed invalid. The Wang Tengfeng team also presented two strong pieces of evidence, fully demonstrating that the plaintiff's actual loss from the fire was 180 yuan, and the defendant Dafa should bear liability for breach of the transport contract and compensate Shunxing for its losses. Despite the defendant's final attempts to deny, they could not provide sufficient counter-evidence to refute the claims, ultimately failing to overturn the outcome.

In the end, after trial, the court accepted the views of Wang Tengfeng's legal team and ruled that the defendant compensate the plaintiff, Shunxing Company, 180 yuan. Thus, Wang Tengfeng's legal team successfully saved Shunxing Company from a situation where it would have only received three times the freight compensation while bearing a huge loss of over one million yuan.