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.