If a courier is lost in transit, how can the company refuse compensation?
[2] Compiled from: Shandong High Court
Case review
[3] Lao Ma spent 2999 yuan to buy a watch from an online mall. Due to scratches on the watch face, he mailed the watch to the manufacturer in Shanghai via a courier company for replacement. When the manufacturer signed for the package, they found no watch inside. After verification with the courier company, it was confirmed that the watch was lost during shipping. Lao Ma demanded full compensation from the courier company but was refused, so he sued the courier company in court, requesting an order for compensation of 2999 yuan.
[4] The courier company argued that Lao Ma did not choose insured shipping when filling out the waybill, so compensation could only be made according to the terms of the waybill, which stipulated ten times the actual shipping fee paid.
[5] The court held that this case was a transportation contract dispute. The transportation contract established between Lao Ma and the courier company was legally valid, and both parties should fulfill their obligations. According to Articles 811 and 832 of the Civil Code, the carrier has the duty to safely transport goods to the agreed destination and shall bear liability for damages caused by loss or damage of goods during transportation, except for reasons such as force majeure or reasonable wear and tear. In this case, the watch was lost during shipping, and the courier company, as the carrier, failed to safely transport the item to the agreed destination, constituting gross negligence, and thus should bear compensation liability.
Civil Code of the People's Republic of China
[6] Paragraph 2 of Article 496
When a contract is concluded using standard-form clauses, the party providing the standard-form clauses shall determine the rights and obligations between the parties in accordance with the principle of fairness and shall take reasonable measures to draw the other party's attention to clauses that exempt or reduce the provider's liability or involve other significant interests of the other party, and shall explain such clauses upon the other party's request. If the party providing the standard-form clauses fails to fulfill the obligation to draw attention or provide explanation, causing the other party to fail to notice or understand clauses that significantly affect its interests, the other party may assert that such clauses are not part of the contract.
Article 811
The carrier shall safely transport passengers and cargo to the agreed destination within the agreed or reasonable period.
Article 832
[1] The carrier shall bear liability for compensation for the damage or loss of goods during transportation. However, if the carrier proves that the damage or loss was caused by force majeure, the natural nature or reasonable wear and tear of the goods, or the fault of the shipper or consignee, it shall not bear liability for compensation.
[1] The author's perspective
[2] The growing prospects of e-commerce have driven the increasing development of the express delivery industry. For consumers, choosing express delivery has become a very common practice. However, for express delivery companies, charging low shipping fees while bearing high compensation costs is unfair. Yet valuable transported goods do face risks of damage or loss. In such cases, express delivery companies have introduced a valuation insurance method to protect their rights.
[3] Additionally, it is worth noting that in this case, the express delivery company's compensation clause was a standard term, and it failed to fulfill its obligation to draw attention to or explain it, rendering it legally ineffective against Lao Ma. This shows that when using standard terms, businesses must fulfill the obligation to draw attention or provide explanations; otherwise, they may be at a disadvantage in disputes.
