A RMB 150,000 parcel destroyed as rubbish: how the sender can claim
A woman in Changsha sent a 27-kilogram parcel containing her entire household, valued by her at about RMB 150,000, but the courier misread the label, assumed it was clothing for recycling and delivered it to a recycling plant, where it was shredded. She had not bought declared-value cover, so under the Courier Market Administration Measures and the Contract Law she cannot rely on a declared sum and must instead prove the contents were worth what she claims in order to recover their market value, a burden the courts will scrutinise closely.
Background
Sending and receiving parcels is an ordinary part of daily life, but Ms Li, who moved from Liaoning after graduating to work in Changsha, Hunan, recently had a thoroughly unpleasant experience with a courier.
On 5 August she sent a parcel weighing more than 27 kilograms at a cost of over RMB 400, but by 14 August it had still not arrived, and when she telephoned she was told that it had been delivered to a used-clothing recycling plant and shredded. The 27-kilogram parcel held everything she owned, including daily necessities, relatively expensive clothing, unopened cosmetics, a USB drive holding a large number of original comic drawings, and the hanfu, jewellery and figurines she had bought over four years at university with money saved from drawing comics and working part-time. She estimates the total value at about RMB 150,000.
She found the whole thing both absurd and infuriating. Her parcel was intact on the outside and contained some sealed packages, so how could the courier have signed for it himself and sent it to a clothing recycling plant?
Ms Li went to the recycling plant to view the surveillance footage and could see staff sorting through her belongings in the factory on 7 August. She also found her lamp, extension socket and professional books among the staff dormitories, though these were the less valuable items. The plant's staff said that everything delivered there is rubbish and they assumed it was unwanted, which is why employees took items away, and that they can now return the property to Ms Li.
The person in charge of the courier station said the matter arose from the carelessness of the courier, who had joined only a month earlier and had not checked the waybill carefully, assuming the goods were for clothing recycling, which is why they were sent to the plant. Two options are now open: one is for the courier's claims team to assess the loss, the station not being responsible; the other is for the station to look for Ms Li's goods, of which 3 kilograms have so far been recovered, with police involvement and a full claim if the rest cannot be found.
The matter has not yet been resolved. Staff handling it say they are investigating and will inform the public once the facts are clear. Ms Li's demand at present is that all her belongings be recovered, since the USB drive holds many drawings that were never uploaded and whose value cannot be measured in money, and her work has also been seriously affected.
The law
Besides waiting for the courier's response, what else can Ms Li do?
More than one law in China bears on courier disputes, including the Postal Law, the Measures for the Administration of the Courier Market and the Contract Law. Under the Measures for the Administration of the Courier Market, a lost parcel is compensated as previously agreed by the parties; absent agreement, there are two methods, namely compensation up to the declared value where the sender declared a value for the parcel, and compensation under the Postal Law and the Contract Law where no value was declared.
Since Ms Li did not buy declared-value cover, compensation should follow the Postal Law, the Contract Law and related provisions.
Under the Contract Law, the carrier, that is the courier company, is responsible for keeping the consignment safe, and if the goods are damaged in transit the courier company must compensate the consumer as agreed or, absent agreement, at market value, calculated by reference to the market price at the place of delivery at the time of delivery or due delivery. In that process, it is for the consumer to prove the actual value of the lost items.
By choosing to send the goods by courier, Ms Li in effect concluded a freight service contract with the company, under which the company undertakes to deliver the goods safely. Where the contract is breached, or a tort is committed, the sender may claim damages for breach of contract or for the tort.
Ms Li may therefore claim against the courier company for the original value of the goods under the Contract Law and related provisions. To calculate compensation she must now find a way to prove the specific value of what she sent, and that is the most important point of all.
If Ms Li has evidence proving that the goods she sent were worth as much as RMB 150,000, then even without declared-value cover Deppon Express should compensate her at their actual value. It should be noted, however, that the burden of proof must be discharged fully, or the court will not uphold the claim.
Should declared-value cover be bought?
On this matter, Ms Li would be well advised to negotiate with the courier company first. If negotiation fails, she can keep the relevant receipts and complain to the consumers association or instruct a lawyer to sue in court, so as to protect her rights more effectively.
We have all come across the absurd situation in which a parcel is lost or damaged and, because no declared-value cover was bought, the courier company offers only a few dozen or a few hundred yuan. Where the parcel is not worth much, most people resign themselves to the loss; where it is valuable, a dispute with the company is hard to avoid.
Whether or not a value is declared, a contractual relationship exists between sender and courier company, but from a legal point of view declared-value cover has one important advantage: it proves the total value of the goods sent. Declaring a value for valuable items is therefore one way of solving the problem.