TV damaged during transport, gross negligence exemption invalid

Compiled from: Zaozhuang Intermediate Court
 
Online shopping has become an indispensable part of people's daily lives, and it is not uncommon for goods purchased online to be damaged during transportation. So, can the "Disclaimer Letter" signed between the shipper and the courier company necessarily exempt the courier company from liability for compensation? Please see the case below.

 
 

Case review
Li purchased a liquid crystal television online. Due to unclear picture quality, he contacted the seller for a return. Li placed an order through a courier company's mini-program and handed the television over to the courier company for return shipping to the seller. The courier company inspected the item and accepted it for carriage, with Li paying the shipping fee.
 
At the time of shipment, the courier company's delivery person presented Li with a "Letter of Disclaimer for Express Item Safety" (hereinafter referred to as the "Disclaimer Letter") and requested him to sign it. The main content of the Disclaimer Letter was: "Due to the inherent nature and special packaging of our consignment, the consignment is highly susceptible to damage during transportation. We fully understand the above risks and are willing to bear them ourselves so that your company can provide delivery services with peace of mind. To facilitate the delivery of our consignment and prevent your company from suffering undue losses due to delivering our consignment, through fair and friendly negotiation, we will not claim any compensation or liability for breach of contract from your company on this basis: In the event of damage during transportation and delivery, no liability for compensation (including claims and refunds of shipping fees and value-added service fees) shall be borne."
 
The item was delivered to the merchant, who inspected it and found damage to the corner of the TV screen, refusing to accept it. After negotiation, the courier company returned the TV to Li. Upon receiving it, Li discovered that the TV screen was completely shattered and unusable, so he contacted the courier company's customer service to demand compensation. The courier company refused, citing that Li had signed a disclaimer. Li filed a lawsuit, requesting: 1. Confirmation that the "Disclaimer Statement" is invalid; 2. An order for the courier company to compensate him for losses of 1,435.65 yuan.
 
 
[1] Court Opinion
The court held that Li and the courier company had signed a "Courier Service Agreement," which was legally valid, establishing a courier service contract relationship. During the performance of the contract, Li paid the shipping fee as agreed, and the courier company inspected and accepted the goods for carriage. The courier company was obligated to safely transport the consigned goods to the agreed location and deliver them to the designated recipient.
 
In this case, the courier company transported the LCD TV to the recipient (the merchant), but it was rejected due to damage, which already demonstrated that the company failed to exercise due care during transport and bore some fault for the damage. Additionally, when the goods were returned to Li, a more severe secondary damage occurred. This sufficiently proved that the courier company was grossly negligent during carriage, failing to fulfill its basic duty to protect the goods, causing serious damage to Li's property.
 
According to Article 506, Item 2 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, exemption clauses in a contract are invalid if they involve intentional or gross negligence causing property damage to the other party. Therefore, although Li signed the disclaimer statement with the courier company, and the company had fulfilled its obligation to explain and highlight the exemption clause, the disclaimer statement should be deemed invalid due to the company's gross negligence during carriage, which caused serious damage to Li's property. The courier company must bear liability for compensating Li's property losses. The court upheld Li's claims.
 
 
《 [1] The People's Republic of China Civil Code
Article 506
The following exemption clauses in a contract are invalid:
(1) Causing personal injury to the other party;
(2) Causing property damage to the other party due to intentional or gross negligence.
 
 
Article 832
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 of goods is caused by force majeure, the natural properties of the goods themselves, reasonable wear and tear, or the fault of the shipper or consignee, the carrier shall not bear liability for compensation.
 
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
With the rapid development of e-commerce in China, online shopping has become an indispensable part of people's daily lives. Every online shopping transaction relies on the support of the express delivery and logistics industry. The prosperity of the e-commerce industry has driven the growth of the express delivery and logistics industry. However, at the same time, the express delivery and logistics industry must improve its service capabilities and ability to handle risks, rather than simply exempting itself from responsibility. After all, evading responsibility is not a long-term solution. Providing consumers with convenient, fast, safe, and efficient express services, enabling people to shop online with greater peace of mind and confidence, is not only crucial to the healthy development of the express delivery and e-commerce industries but also closely related to the quality of people's lives.