In recent days, a close friend of the internet said that a very valuable hand-in-hand company had broken down during the delivery, demanding that the courier company pay $18,000 at the insured price, while the other party claimed only $500. Earlier, the media had also exposed cases in which the price of $8,000 for gold was only $2,000, and the cost of the cell phone was only one tenth, leading to much discussion on the internet as to whether the delivery price was the protection of consumer rights or the “set” of courier companies。
In response, in interviews with journalists, the scholars and lawyers concerned stated that the price of the security implied that the consumer and the express delivery company had agreed on the value of the goods, that the consumer should be guided by the principle of good faith in declaring the value, and that the express delivery company should take measures to ensure that the valuable goods were delivered safely and on time, subject to full compensation in the event of error, loss and damage。
The policy should be based on the principle of honest credit
The price policy in the express delivery sector has been a public concern. The csp is, in fact, a value-added service for express delivery and the amount insured is the consumer's “valuation” of the goods. There are a considerable number of domestic express carriers that have set the standards and regulations relating to guaranteed prices, but there are still many disputes based on the complexity of the express offer。
On a web-based complaints platform, there were as many as 10,000 complaints about the delivery price, largely after the delivery was lost or damaged, and the delivery company failed to pay the full amount of the premium. Consumers wonder why the premium is set if the fpi cannot be paid. Is the express delivery company circumventing its responsibilities by introducing cumbersome price-insurance provisions
In accordance with the provisional express delivery regulations, in the case of delay, loss, damage or insufficiency of the package, liability shall be determined in accordance with the price security rules agreed between the enterprise operating the express delivery business and the sender; and in the case of uninsured delivery, liability shall be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of civil law. In fact, in the case of non-insurance, the express delivery companies also have a policy of compensation based on a certain number of times the delivery fee。
A reporter logs in a delivery company's micro-mail package, which reminds him of a proposal to secure a price for high-value, fragile items. It recognized the items as having a real value greater than $1,000 and charged a premium of 0. 5 per cent of the stated value. For example, for delivery goods with a guaranteed price of $1,000, a premium of $5 is required. However, there are no strict criteria for the valuation of the goods, and consumer self-declarations are used in specific operations, and couriers generally do not conduct audits。
In response, associate professor zhang zhang, director of the civil and commercial law research unit, faculty of technology, university of south china, argued that express delivery companies, mostly in the form of form clauses, should make clear to consumers the meaning and scope of the premium before providing it, avoiding misleading purchases of the premium services. At the same time, the pricing system design requires consumers to disclose the value of the item at the time of conclusion of the contract in order for the express delivery company to determine the rate of the fee. In other words, the premium should also follow the principles of good faith。
The premium should not be a “backbrow” for relief
“the goods were priced in such a way that the parties agreed on the value of the goods.” liao jian-hoon, a partner of guangdong state law office, explained that, under article 833 of the civil code, the parties had agreed on the damages and compensation for the loss of the goods. Consequently, damage to the priced goods would normally be compensated for the value of the guaranteed price。
If the goods were damaged during the delivery, how would compensation be paid? First is the issue of impairment. Liao jian-hoon suggested that, if consumers send things that are difficult to confirm value, such as games, paintings, handmade works, as much as possible, they should purchase price-fixing services, keep invoices or payment vouchers and, in case of dispute, support the value of the items. In the absence of such documentation, the value of the items and the value of damage are determined by means of validation or self-consensus。
Second, even if the value of the damaged items were to be proven, would it be reasonable for the express delivery company to reduce the amount of compensation in proportion to the actual damage? In the view of liao jian-hoon, in the case of partial damage, the amount of compensation would be determined in proportion to the value of the damage, in order to meet the principle of relative equity。
If goods are lost during delivery, how is compensation paid? In a number of previous cases, the goods were lost but not fully compensated by express. Liao jiang-hoon analyses that individual courier companies may use a number of exoneration clauses to avoid full compensation for economic interests. In addition, there are courier companies subcontracting terminal couriers to other companies, which may refuse to pay compensation or minimize the loss. Liao jian-hoon stated that, in the case of price guarantees, the law would generally support appropriate compensation based on the value of the price。
By searching, journalists have found that compensation based on the value of the premium is generally supported in cases of courier contract disputes before local courts. In a case closed by the beijing dae-hyun court in february today, the plaintiff declared a price guarantee of $1,000 for eight goods and paid a price guarantee of $2. 00, and then sued the courier company for the loss of four of the goods. The court upheld the payment of $500 on the basis of the amount of the goods sent by the plaintiff and the amount saved。
Zhang zhang stated that there were differences in the cost of transportation between precious goods and goods in general, so that the rates could vary. Once goods have been lost or broken during delivery, the express delivery company should also have higher standards of compensation for high-value goods for which the consumer has already disclosed value, and a price-fixing system should not be used as a “bidder” to mitigate liability。
