Information from it house, 18 november, according to shanghai i court of justice's micro-salent public news, today (18 november), the first intermediate people's court of shanghai city (hereinafter referred to as the shanghai i court) handed down a public judgment in a contract of carriage dispute, finding that the express delivery clause of shunfung was valid and ruling that shun fong had agreed on a seven-fold freight limit under the express delivery clause。
At the beginning of this year, chang purchased a $6,479 super-high-resolution computer screen in kyototown. Upon delivery, zhang immediately filed a request for refund of the goods with the merchant when it discovered that the screen was very different from what the merchant had originally described and did not represent the promotion he wanted. After a communication, the seller agreed to return the goods and provided zhang with the receiving address for the returned goods。
On the following day, xiao zhang carried the screen and went to the shunfung express delivery station near his home, where he took a bill for a freight fee of $40 under the micro-mail public code sweep at hhunfung. As a result, the monitor was damaged during its return to the merchant's transport, and the screen was shown to be networked and the merchant refused to accept it。
Zhang argued that the screen was still intact when he sent his own bill, that sunfung had broken the goods and should be compensated for all his losses. In the view of shun fong, the price was not insured at the time the small mail was sent and the damage to the item was only seven times the freight cost of $280。
After several consultations between xiao zhang and shun fong, which failed to resolve the problem, zhang filed a case with the court requesting the court to award shun fung to pay him $6,479。
The court of first instance found that zhang had failed to secure the price or declare the value of the goods in question, and that his claim for compensation based on the sale price was unfounded. Under the terms of the contract for electronic bills of lading agreement of sunfung, the company was to be compensated for seven times the freight rate of $280. Zhang contested the judgement and appealed to the shanghai central court。
The small appeal stated that the two-dimensional code provided by sunfung was different from the one it had in place at the time of its listing, and that the next single-time system did not contain a reminder of the price. At the same time, the courier did not remind himself of the price to be insured, never sent a large, fragile product, without the concept of a premium and without knowledge of the risk。
Shunfung, for its part, considered that it had fulfilled its obligation to inform that more than 1,000 yuan would be required to secure the price, otherwise compensation would be required. At the same time, the standard of compensation has been marked in the terms of the contract for electronic consignment notes of hhunfung. When a client sends a message, the system requires that it must be read and agreed to before sending it, otherwise it cannot succeed。
As a result of the hearing, the shanghai central court held that the dispute between the parties was the amount of compensation. In the course of the trial, shun fung provided a public certificate documenting the entire process of the orders in its micro-credit public number to demonstrate that shun fung had made a clear and reasonable indication of its obligation to inform on the issue of compensation. Although zhang claims that no hints were made in its system, this was not supported by evidence and was notarized earlier than the lower part of the small lettering screen entrusted to shunfung。
As a result, zhang's failure to secure the price was due to its own reasons, and the shun fung company's compensation at the limit was not inappropriate. The it family learned that the shanghai central court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence。
