380000 yuan Rolex lost! Latest response, SF Express is involved! Men send packages that are not insured and lost | insured | men

According to the official Weibo account of "Xiaoli Helps" on Henan TV's Minsheng Channel on July 22nd, Mr. Shi from Jilin recently sought help from @ Xiaoli, claiming that nearly 380000 yuan Rolex he sent through SF Express was lost, and provided videos of the delivery and reception.

On July 22nd, SF Express contacted Mr. Shi and requested a 10 day search period. If there were no results, the purchased watch would be fully compensated. If the watch is retrieved in the future, Mr. Shi will return the compensation. At present, the police have retrieved fingerprints and the case is under investigation.

Unpriced express delivery for men

Rolex worth 380000 yuan lost

Earlier on the 22nd, "Xiao Li Helps" posted that recently, Mr. Shi from Yanbian, Jilin, sought help and claimed that he had sent a Rolex watch worth nearly 380000 yuan to Guangzhou via SF Express, but when the recipient opened the box, they found nothing inside.

"She found that there was nothing inside, only the outer packaging box without a watch. My first reaction may have been that it was left in the store when it was mailed," Mr. Shi said.

The uninterrupted surveillance video provided by Mr. Shi in the store shows that after the employee packed the watch, the SF Express guy picked up the package.

Regarding this, SF Express pickup guy explained that he was too busy at the time and didn't look at what was inside the package. When the recipient inspected the goods, the watch was missing, but the specific location of the missing item cannot be determined.

The delivery video provided by Guangdong shows that a woman opened the outer packaging box and found that there was no watch, so she kept searching inside the express box.

"You see, this is Guangdong that started unpacking after receiving the goods. When packaging, she wrapped foam and tape on the watch box, but when she took it out, it was a white box. They also received the goods. After the arrival of the goods, the whole process of video monitoring. You see how surprised she was. She thought she had lost it. She looked for the outside express box. She thought her watch had fallen inside. By this time, her watch was no longer there." Mr. Shi said.

Subsequently, the safety and security staff of SF Jilin Province stated that they had been searching and felt like they were the recipient, but they felt it was useless. "I did not avoid saying that the responsibility was not with SF, but I was responsible for finding it. If you want to discuss compensation, you can contact customer service," they said.

The customer service responded that there is currently no conclusion and there will be a dedicated person to coordinate.

Mr. Shi bluntly said, "SF Express said that only their internal personnel can access this package, so I am very certain that it was their internal personnel who opened the box and took the watch."

Mr. Shi claimed that due to the lack of insurance, SF Express had offered compensation of 1000 yuan, but he did not agree. "I don't think this thing has anything to do with whether it's insured or not, because it's not a case of transportation damage or damage. All the evidence now shows that it was a theft."

After the incident, Mr. Shi has reported to the police. "My request is very simple, either find and return the 380000 yuan watch to me, or compensate me according to the actual amount," Mr. Shi said.

The relevant lawyer stated that whether the watch was stolen by a "domestic thief" from SF Express or an "thief" from outside, it needs to wait for further investigation by the public security organs to confirm and pursue criminal responsibility for the theft crime in accordance with the law. But for the losses suffered by the shipper, SF Express should now bear the corresponding civil liability, which is not directly related to the investigation process and results of criminal cases.

The lawyer claimed that SF Express's claim of price protection is an internal working method and still needs to bear corresponding compensation liability based on the actual losses that the shipper can prove.

In response to this, netizens have heated discussions: "This kind of thing really needs to be thoroughly investigated." "Is it not guaranteed to be worth hundreds of thousands of yuan?"

How to compensate for lost express delivery?

In recent years, online shopping has gradually become one of the main channels for consumers to shop, and the express delivery industry has also developed rapidly. While the emergence of new things brings convenience, it also brings various disputes and legal issues.

According to the Weihai Court, if a courier is damaged or lost without insurance, the courier company can be required to compensate in accordance with relevant provisions of civil law. Consumers should not have the misconception of "more protection, more compensation" when choosing to insure their express delivery. Even if the declared price is falsely high during the insurance process, it is calculated based on the actual value, and the excess amount is only a waste of money.

Similarly, for express delivery companies, if they only charge express delivery fees according to ordinary standards, they have to bear compensation responsibilities of hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of times the express delivery fees. Firstly, it is unfair, and secondly, it is indeed not conducive to the healthy development of express delivery enterprises. The "price guarantee" service launched by the express delivery industry is precisely to balance the freight and risk of express delivery companies. However, in daily life, when express delivery personnel receive express delivery or place orders online, the contract terms do not clearly remind the sender. When disputes occur, due to the express delivery company providing standard terms and not fulfilling the obligation to remind the counterparty, the terms are invalid and can only bear high compensation. So in practice, express delivery companies should design forms that are sufficient to remind the other party to pay attention or fully fulfill their obligation to remind to avoid the risk of bearing huge compensation in case of disputes.

According to Wu Haifen, a second level judge of the Qingshuihe People's Court of the Luohu District People's Court in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, according to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, with the rapid development of the express delivery industry, many transactions of valuable items are also delivered through express delivery. In order to reduce business risks, express delivery companies often agree with consumers on insurance terms. If a package is lost, damaged, or short, compensation will be made based on its actual value, with a maximum of no more than the insured amount of the package. This clause is a mutual agreement reached by both parties and is generally recognized as valid, provided that it does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. If the express delivery company has intentional or gross negligence during the delivery process, the agreement that the compensation limit is the insured amount exempts the express delivery company from liability, and this clause is an exemption clause. In this case, to prevent moral hazard for the courier company, the clause should be deemed invalid.

The judge hereby reminds that express delivery companies should clearly remind consumers to insure important items, inform relevant insurance rules and service items, improve delivery processes, enhance regulatory protection for valuable or special items, and enhance the quality and level of express delivery services.

Related laws and regulations

Provisional Regulations on Express Delivery

Article 19, Paragraph 3: If the legitimate rights and interests of a user are damaged due to the delay, loss, damage, or shortage of contents of a package, the user may demand compensation from the enterprise to which the trademark, trade name, or express waybill belongs, or from the enterprise that actually provides express delivery services.

Article 24, Paragraph 1: Enterprises engaged in express delivery services shall operate in a standardized manner to prevent damage to parcels.

Article 27: If a package is delayed, lost, damaged, or has insufficient contents, the compensation liability for the insured package shall be determined in accordance with the insurance rules agreed upon between the enterprise engaged in express delivery business and the sender; For uninsured parcels, compensation liability shall be determined in accordance with relevant provisions of civil law.

The Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 506: The following exemption clauses in a contract are invalid: if they cause personal injury to the other party; Causing property damage to the other party due to intentional or gross negligence.

Article 510: If there is no agreement or unclear agreement between the parties regarding quality, price or remuneration, place of performance, etc. after the contract takes effect, they may supplement it by agreement; If a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, it shall be determined in accordance with the relevant terms of the contract or transaction practices.

Article 577 stipulates that if one party fails to perform its contractual obligations or fails to fulfill its contractual obligations in accordance with the agreement, it shall bear the liability for breach of contract, such as continuing to perform, taking remedial measures, or compensating for losses.

Article 811: The carrier shall safely transport passengers and goods to the agreed location within the agreed or reasonable time limit.

Article 832 stipulates that the carrier shall be liable for compensation for the damage or loss of goods during transportation. However, if the carrier proves that the damage or loss of the goods is caused by force majeure, the natural nature or reasonable wear and tear of the goods themselves, or the fault of the consignor or consignee, they shall not be liable for compensation.

Article 833 stipulates that if the parties have an agreement on the amount of compensation for damage or loss of goods, it shall be in accordance with their agreement; If there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, and it cannot be determined according to the provisions of Article 510 of this Law, it shall be calculated based on the market price of the goods at the place of delivery or when they should be delivered. If there are other provisions in laws and administrative regulations regarding the calculation method and compensation limit of compensation, such provisions shall prevail.