Have you ever noticed the prompt content when you place an order through the small program? If the answer is no, it will be a snack in the future. < p > < p > today (November 18), Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s court) publicly adjudicated a transportation contract dispute case, holding that the express terms of SF company were legal and valid, and ordered SF company to compensate 7 times the freight according to the express delivery terms. < p > < p > at the beginning of this year, Xiao Zhang bought an ultra high definition computer display screen in Jingdong Mall for 6479 yuan. After the express arrived home, Zhang found that the display screen was quite different from what the merchant had described at the beginning. It was not the upgrade money he wanted, so he immediately asked the merchant for a refund. After some communication, the merchant agreed to return the goods and provided Xiao Zhang with the receiving address of the return. On the second day of

, Xiao Zhang moved the display and walked to the delivery express station of the Shanghai Express, which was sent to WeChat official account of Shun Feng company, paying 40 yuan for shipping. As a result, the display was damaged in the process of transportation, and the screen showed a network rupture, and the merchant refused to accept the display screen. < p > < p > later, Xiaozhang and Shunfeng company conducted many consultations, but they failed to solve the problem. Finally, Xiao Zhang filed a lawsuit to the court and asked the court to judge Shunfeng company to compensate him by 6479 yuan. < / P > < p > the court of first instance held that Xiaozhang had not insured the price of the goods involved in the case and did not declare the value, so his claim for compensation according to the sales price is groundless in law. According to the agreement on compensation for uninsured goods in the contract terms of electronic waybill of Shunfeng company, Shunfeng company shall make compensation according to 7 times of the freight, that is 280 yuan. Xiao Zhang refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the first central court of Shanghai. < / P > < p > the QR code provided by SF company is different from that when placing an order, and there is no content to remind the insured price when placing an order. At the same time, the courier did not remind himself to insure the price when he received the goods. He had never mailed a large fragile product. He did not have the concept of price protection and did not understand the existence of risks. < / P > < p > as for the insured price, I have done my duty to inform you, and the items above 1000 yuan need to be insured, otherwise they will be compensated according to the regulations. At the same time, the compensation standard is marked in the contract terms of electronic waybill of SF company. When the customer sends a message, the system will require that it must be read and approved before sending, otherwise it cannot be sent successfully.

Shun Feng company provided a notarial document in court hearing, recording the whole process of placing orders in WeChat public official account to prove that the company has made clear instructions on compensation and has made reasonable obligation within the reasonable range. < / P > < p > although Xiaozhang claimed that there was no prompt content in the system of placing an order, he did not provide proof of this, and the notarization time was earlier than the time when Xiaozhang entrusted Shunfeng company to mail the display screen. Therefore, it is not improper for SF company to make compensation according to the limit. Shanghai No. 1 middle court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. < p > < p > Han Chaowei, the chief judge and chief judge of this case, reminded that in order to avoid the recurrence of similar transportation contract disputes in the future, on the one hand, the express company should further strengthen the management, make more obvious reminders on the format terms in the single interface of the small program, and the courier should also take the initiative to remind customers of the value of valuables when receiving the goods, and at the same time, ensure the goods sent by users Get to your destination quickly and safely. On the other hand, as consumers, we should strengthen the study of common sense of express delivery and carefully read the relevant terms before placing an order, so as to effectively protect their legitimate rights and interests. If the standard terms are adopted to conclude a contract, the party providing the standard terms shall follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations between the parties, and shall, in a reasonable manner, draw the other party’s attention to the provisions exempting or limiting its liability, and explain the terms according to the requirements of the other party. Where the parties have agreed on the amount of compensation for damage to or loss of the goods, such agreement shall prevail; if there is no such agreement or the agreement is not clear and cannot be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 61 of this law, it shall be calculated according to the market price at the place where the goods arrive at the time of delivery or should be delivered. Where there are other provisions in laws and administrative regulations on the calculation method and limit of compensation, such provisions shall prevail. In case of delay, loss, damage or short contents of express delivery, the compensation liability for the insured express shall be determined in accordance with the price protection rules agreed between the enterprise engaging in express delivery business and the sender, and the liability for the non insured express shall be determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of civil law. The State encourages insurance companies to develop liability insurance for the loss of express delivery and encourages enterprises engaged in express delivery business to take out insurance. Privacy Policy