To spend 4,999 yuan bought a new IPHONE 4, checked in after the FedEx delivery did not reach the recipient in the hands Jibei lost, and Federal Express to pay compensation for this is only 100 yuan. Wang Hui end consumer complaints to the Chinese consumers () and qq.com 315 consumer complaints, co-sponsored the official micro-blog. Accordingly investigations have written newspaper articles published, elicited a strong response in users. So, FedEx lost the value of 4999 yuan IPHONE4 only pay 100 yuan compensation, is based on what? The basis for this work?
Consumer question: such a contract is Global call for help again, He was iphone4 handover process of mobile phone: he first call the Federal Express customer service and asked mobile phone can express delivery, customer service answered the phone said it was possible to ask whether express, customer service personnel suggested Next, he delivered the phone to members of Federal Express pickup and delivery, he repeatedly confessed that phone, Of Wang Hui's In this process, the Federal Express to pick from the customer service staff members, are not goods consignment note to remind Wang Hui, read the back of the
the sent, error message or the greatest responsibility to provide information, according to the consignment ticket limit per shipment 100 yuan or 20 yuan per kg, whichever is higher, but if you press the paper reported higher affirms the value of the goods, unless.
Wang Hui said: , consumers do not seek any advice, so go its own way of contract, the contract is not what King? this form contract to effectively do? of these provisions, ordinary postal mail business is not liable for the loss. However, the postal business because of willful misconduct or gross negligence except for losses caused by ordinary e-mail.
forty-seventh article, the Post business, according to e-mail to the loss of compensation in accordance with the following provisions: (b) It does not protect the price of a message is lost, damaged or deficient in cases, according to the actual damages, but does not exceed the maximum limit of three times the rates charged; registered mail is lost, damaged, according to three times the rates charged to compensation. Postal enterprises shall place a notice in the business and provide messages to users, according to documents on the user's attention to the way enough to set out in the preceding paragraph. Postal enterprises due to intentional or gross negligence, according to message loss, or failure to fulfill obligations under the preceding paragraph, no right to invoke the provisions of first paragraph of this limitation of liability. According to these provisions, FedEx only in two cases, missing items can be formatted according to their own compensation contract, one fully carried out this obligation.
Wang Hui said, Federal Express will be printed on the back of the form contract, and with a very small font, densely arranged, if not reminded, there is no relevant provisions. Members of the pickup when the pickup and did not inform the insured and not insured the difference, therefore, FedEx fails to do does not exist Federal Express Corporation announced the delay after missing items, how to prove that they are not
on items not insured, and only offer minimal compensation, then, when consumers check valuables, would not condone the express industry in the lawless acts of theft or damaged goods? But have not made it clear that is not insured and the insured the difference in the delivery process, only emphasized the insured items can be equivalent to compensation, and then charge exorbitant insurance fee, this not increase the burden on consumers in disguise?
How can one not question it is the King contract? that King contract, in the Chinese market but also how long they survive?
Court Case: This form contract, invalid
challenge for Wang Hui, and no one can give an accurate answer.
but the court for other courier companies similar to the format of the contract jurisprudence, can still give people the reference.
end of last year, Guangdong Foshan Chancheng District People's Court to determine the format of a similar courier contract is invalid.
2009 年 9 21, Foshan, a medical device company (hereinafter referred to as device company) commissioned a mail courier service department and their corresponding invoices of goods and the consignment of the sender and the recipient to fill the name and address and telephone number. However, in value and protect the price of a bar does not fill. Express freight company in accordance with standard shipping is 12 dollars. Courier company employees after the fault, resulting in loss of goods by mail. However, only willing to pay 60 yuan courier company for compensation. Helpless, the medical device company sued the courier company to court.
in court, explained that the express company, only pay 60 yuan is based. Because the front of the waybill has been made to remind, responsibility to the appropriate reminder. Meanwhile, the consignment note on the back of the contract: Device company selected is sent by express mail is not insured, it can only compensate 60.
Chancheng District Court of First Instance that the terms of the format of delivery to the responsibility of exemptions, increasing the responsibility of the mail, and contract law, contrary to legislative intent, so the clause is invalid. Meanwhile, the court also held that, according to the industry practice, the carrier or low-limit compensation exemption applies only to the carrier under no fault of their own goods, damage to or loss situation, as a result of force majeure, the intrinsic characteristics of goods, loss or the carrier to take appropriate precautions have been stolen and other goods under the circumstances.
present case, the courier company as entirely satisfactory custody of the cargo carrier's obligations, the existence of the goods lost was at fault, and Lee, as owners of the Ministry of express delivery services, device companies should be compensated for the loss of goods. Accordingly, the court ordered the company to be full compensation for Express 2 million yuan.
Coincidentally, the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court in one case, the express delivery company also announced a similar format of the contract is invalid.
2008 年 9 23, Ka Chi Tiancheng Yuantong company commissioned the total price of shipping goods 17 300 yuan, the results are Yuantong company lost. Ka Chi Tiancheng claim, the tact by shipping companies are only willing to compensate the 5 times.
this, Ka Chi heaven will Yuantong company sued Beijing's Tongzhou District People's Court. Tact in the first instance, the respondent said: Ka Chi Tiancheng for the import of goods by mail, said pump A30-2.5 three ingredients, imported 2 including whether the goods. Tiancheng by Ka Chi express mail does loss occurs during transport, so tact is willing to compensate.
existing regulations and from January 1, 2008 came into operation Express business service standards made clear that the standard of compensation for non-express mail items shipping by no more than 5 times the principle of compensation, so the tact the company agreed to compensate the postage 5 times.
court of first instance check out after the fact that the PRC Contract Law, the format is a party for repeated use articles are prepared in advance and did not enter into the contract terms negotiated with the other party. entered into a contract with standard terms, the party supplying the standard terms should follow a fair principle to determine the rights and obligations between the parties. the party supplying relieved from its responsibility, adding other responsibilities, excluding the rights of the other party, the clause is invalid.
tact details of a single company E098046384 the back of the express delivery of Notes 6 referred to as tact is committed to the mailing fee is 5 times the amount of compensation, there was only 525, and Ka Chi Tiancheng gap between the actual loss suffered by far, it is a violation of the standard terms fair and reasonable basic principles of civil law, and there are excluded Send cases were the rights of the case, the hospital determines that the terms of format is invalid, the company should be in accordance with the Ka Chi Yuantong Tiancheng compensation for actual losses.
Yuantong verdict against the company, appealed to the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court, the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court held that: the case dispute whether the company should focus Yuantong lost uninsured items posted and delivered real value to the Ka Chi Tiancheng is liable for damages. According to the back of the case involved express waybill printing express provisions of Article 6 of Notes, non-insured shipment is lost, posted and delivered by the sender to pay the cost of twice the actual damages. As the Express notes that repeated use Yuantong company prepared in advance when the contract was not on Terms and Ka Chi Tiancheng consultations, so the terms should be content of the right, Yuantong company did not adduce evidence to prove that it has taken a rational way to draw attention to Ka Chi Tiancheng limit its liability provisions and the terms of the Ka Chi on Tiancheng are described, it is the court of first instance pursuant to the terms found invalid, comply with the relevant legal provisions, the Court for their support. Therefore, the tact loss of the company should follow the actual value of goods of 15 131 yuan, to the Ka Chi Tiancheng is liable for damages. Yuantong's lack of legal basis for the grounds of appeal, the Court does not support . the first instance verdict the facts are clear, the law was correctly applied, should be maintained. in accordance with the .
lawyers advise: consumers want to leave enough evidence for the courage rights
Wang Hui, and many consumers in dealing with the courier company rights problems encountered in the process, the Beijing lawyer Zhang Jiayong Onkyo law firm accepted Chinese consumers told reporters: the courage to rights. courier companies to protect the price and non-insured, to distinguish between the consumer after delivery of goods claims lost, in fact, insured delivery and non-insured items in the process, express delivery companies do not make shows what can be given different treatment . In other words, insured and non-insured items are the same way delivery, express delivery companies therefore make a different standard of compensation is clearly not fair, is the fourth ten contract law, other responsibilities, excluding the rights of the other major, the clause is invalid consumers to make unfair and unreasonable requirements, or reduce or waive their legal rights and interests of consumers should bear the damage to civil liability. Form contracts, notices, announcements, shop notices and other content contained in the preceding paragraph, the content is invalid. Hui in wait and see, the majority of consumers are waiting to see. Jianxin
No comments:
Post a Comment