Rule of Law Online | 15 Yuan for 150,000 Yuan worth of crafts: How to compensate if damaged during delivery?

When we send valuable items, courier companies offer a “declared value service,” which is equivalent to insuring the items being sent. In the event of damage during transit, we can claim compensation based on the declared value.

Mr. Kang from Beijing sent two crystal artworks valued at nearly 150,000 yuan via courier, but he only declared a value of 3,000 yuan. Later, one of the pieces was severely damaged during transport. Consequently, he took the courier company to court, demanding compensation based on the original value. So, how would the court ultimately rule?

Sending two pieces of artwork

Declared value of 3,000 yuan

The item in the picture is the crystal artwork that Mr. Kang had damaged. When sending the courier, Mr. Kang paid a total of 15 yuan in declared value fees for the two pieces of artwork, with a declared value of 3,000 yuan.

Song Yang, Deputy Chief Judge of the Caiyu Court, Daxing District People’s Court of Beijing: Mr. Kang engaged an appraisal company to assess the damaged crystal artwork, which was valued at 148,500 yuan. The courier company argued that since he was sending two crystal artworks, the declared value fee was 15 yuan, and the declared value was 3,000 yuan. According to the agreement between the two parties, the courier company only agreed to compensate 1,500 yuan based on the declared value.

Since both parties could not reach an agreement on the compensation amount, Mr. Kang took the courier company to court, requesting compensation of 148,500 yuan based on the appraisal report issued by a third-party appraisal agency, along with 2,000 yuan for appraisal fees.

So, should compensation be based on the original value of the damaged items, or the declared value? In court, plaintiff Mr. Kang and defendant courier company debated this core issue.

Plaintiff Mr. Kang believes that the damage to the artwork was due to the defendant courier company’s improper handling during transport, and since it was the courier company’s staff who assisted in the declared value processing, they should compensate based on the actual market value of the artwork.

Song Yang, Deputy Chief Judge of the Caiyu Court, Daxing District People’s Court of Beijing: Mr. Kang believes the courier company was extremely irresponsible during transport and significantly negligent, leading to the damage of the crystal artwork. Mr. Kang stated that it was the courier staff who helped him with the declared value, and he was not very familiar with the amount.

In response to the plaintiff’s claims, the defendant courier company acknowledged that the damage to the artwork did occur during transport and was willing to accept corresponding responsibility. However, they argued that the declared value of 3,000 yuan was filled out and confirmed by Mr. Kang himself, and compensation should be executed according to the declared value.

Additionally, the plaintiff Mr. Kang submitted a third-party appraisal report showing that the damaged item was identified as yellow crystal stone, with an appraised value of 148,500 yuan. The defendant courier company also expressed that they did not recognize this appraisal result.

Song Yang, Deputy Chief Judge of the Caiyu Court, Daxing District People’s Court of Beijing: The courier company’s appraisal price was 2,000 yuan, with a residual value of 400 yuan, which Mr. Kang did not accept.

Court Findings

Compensation amount determined based on the declared value terms

So, how did the court rule?

According to Article 465 of the Civil Code, legally established contracts are protected by law.

The court found that in this case, plaintiff Mr. Kang sent items through the defendant courier company’s services and paid the shipping fee, thereby forming a courier service contract relationship. The defendant, as the service provider, is responsible for the collection, sorting, transportation, and delivery of the items and has the obligation to properly safeguard and deliver the items safely to the designated recipient. Since the items sent by the plaintiff were damaged during mailing, the defendant courier company should bear the responsibility for compensation.

Regarding the compensation amount, the court ruled that it should be determined according to the declared value terms agreed upon by both parties.

Mao Xitong, Chief Judge of the Caiyu Court, Daxing District People’s Court of Beijing: The Civil Code has a principle of fairness. If the item is very valuable but the declared value is very low, it means the value of the property was not truthfully reported, and the courier company cannot take corresponding risk prevention measures. Because ordinary goods have ordinary shipping requirements, while special goods have special shipping regulations. If the courier company is told it is an ordinary item, one cannot expect the courier company to ship it according to very special standards.

Whether the courier company fulfilled its obligation to explain the standard terms

The court also considered whether the courier company fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable notice and explanation regarding the declared value terms.

In this case, the defendant courier company highlighted the content of that clause in different colors, fulfilling the obligation to “make the other party aware in a reasonable manner.” In the defendant courier company’s app, one must check and read the service agreement before placing an order. Clause 5.2 of the agreement states that if “ordinary declared value” value-added service is used and the declared value fee is paid, compensation will be based on the proportion of the declared value and the loss, with a maximum not exceeding the actual loss amount of the shipped item.

The court noted that the declared value Mr. Kang selected when placing the order was 3,000 yuan. According to the order interface of the courier platform, this amount belongs to the “customized goods value” option and was filled out and confirmed by the plaintiff himself. Although the plaintiff claimed that the declared value operation was assisted by the defendant company’s staff, he failed to provide corresponding evidence to prove this; therefore, the court did not accept this statement. Considering that the plaintiff completed the order and paid the declared value fee independently, it should be viewed that he was aware of and accepted the courier service agreement and related declared value rules.

Song Yang, Deputy Chief Judge of the Caiyu Court, Daxing District People’s Court of Beijing: The courier service agreement stipulates that in the case of declared value, the declared value fee is calculated based on the declared value and the loss ratio and must not exceed the actual loss of the shipped item. Therefore, the court ruled according to this agreement.

The court ruled that the courier company should compensate for the loss of goods of 1,500 yuan.

The court found that the defendant courier company agreed to compensate 1,500 yuan, which was not less than the amount the court calculated based on the law, and therefore did not raise any objections to this. Ultimately, the court ruled that the defendant courier company should compensate plaintiff Mr. Kang for the loss of goods of 1,500 yuan and dismissed Mr. Kang’s other claims.

The judge reminded that nowadays, courier services are quite common, and when sending valuable items, everyone should reasonably choose the declared value based on the actual value of the items, to avoid irreparable losses due to insufficient declared value.

Mao Xitong, Chief Judge of the Caiyu Court, Daxing District People’s Court of Beijing: Some consumers may have a sense of luck. When mailing a courier, it is important to accurately assess the value of the items being mailed and the risks involved, eliminate any sense of luck, and take appropriate declared value measures and risk prevention measures.

As for courier companies, they should also effectively fulfill their obligations to inform and explain key terms such as declared value, ensuring consumers’ right to know and legal rights.

Mao Xitong, Chief Judge of the Caiyu Court, Daxing District People’s Court of Beijing: For businesses, it is essential to balance commercial efficiency and fairness to protect consumers’ legitimate rights and interests. Essentially, regulating delivery is a win-win clause system. Under the premise of regulating delivery, consumers are more likely to trust that the courier company can deliver packages safely and on time, and courier companies are more likely to trust the accuracy of the information provided by consumers, which is beneficial for the healthy development of the service industry.

Source: CCTV News Client