作者：沈明磊、董蕾蕾     2016-12-28

摘  要：近年来，快递服务合同纠纷案件不断增多，随之带来一系列法律适用的难题。司法实践中，各地法院和法官对于快递丢失毁损赔偿的法律依据，保价条款的效力，快递公司提示、说明义务的界定以及赔偿数额的确定等问题认识不一，导致对同类事实作出的判决结果不尽相同甚至截然相反。本文以搜集到的相关裁判文书为基础，从案例研究方法出发，着重分析和试图解决以上几个有争议的问题，并提出了具体的处理意见。

关键词：快递丢失损毁保价条款提示说明义务赔偿范围

近年来， 我国快递服务业特别是民营快递业发展迅猛。据统计，2006年到2012年的6年间，我国快递业务量由10亿件增长至57亿件，年均增幅达到33.7％，规模总量已跃居世界第2位。〔1〕随着业务总量的增加，对于快递公司的投诉也不断增加，据国家邮政局相关人士介绍，反映快件丢失、内件短少、快件损毁的投诉占总投诉量的3成左右。〔2〕与此同时，各种快递纠纷也纷纷诉诸法院，但由于对相关法律规范的理解不同， 围绕快递丢失损毁的法律问题争议较大。本文以搜集到的30余篇判决书为基础，从案例研究方法出发， 着重分析和试图解决快递丢失损毁案件中保价条款的效力、法律依据的选择、赔偿数额的确定等几个具有争议性的问题。

一、快递丢失毁损赔偿的法律依据及案由确定

根据《邮政法》第47条的规定，未保价的给据邮件丢失、损毁或者内件短少的，按照实际损失赔偿，但最高赔偿额不超过所收取资费的3倍；挂号信件丢失、损毁的，按照所收取资费的3倍予以赔偿。而按照《合同法》的规定，赔偿数额可能会远远高于资费的3倍，适用《邮政法》还是《合同法》将会导致赔偿数额出现巨大差异。这一问题在《邮政法》修改之前司法实践中有不同的做法，有的案件甚至一审二审作出了不同的选择。如在陈泽军与沈阳佳惠尔快递服务公司邮政合同纠纷案中， 发件人委托快递公司将货物快递运至深圳。结果在运输期间，由于快递公司的失误货物不慎丢失。据悉，快递单上写明快递内容为“内存”，丢失的货物为99条内存条，总价值近3万元。一审法院判决快递公司基于合同违约赔偿3万。二审法院认为， 由于该快递公司是经有关部门批准享有快件邮递业务资格的从事快件寄递业务的公司， 根据特别法优于一般法的原理，其从业行为应受《邮政法》调整，原审认定双方为运输合同关系不当。〔3〕

这一问题在理论上也是有不同观点的。一种观点认为《合同法》、《民法通则》及《邮政法》均是全国人大或全国人大常委会制定的法律。《民法通则》是基本法，根据《立法法》的规定，应优先适用特别法，适用《邮政法》的规定来进行赔偿。另一种观点认为民营快递业务不同于传统邮政服务业务，适用《邮政法》赔偿对邮寄人不公平，民营快递公司的违约损失赔偿应适用《合同法》的一般规定。

笔者同意第二种观点。2009年新《邮政法》在第6章中将快递服务业纳入邮政业的管辖范围内，但是这并不能否认快递服务业与传统邮政服务业的差异。首先，邮政普遍服务业务具有公益性， 国家亦对其规定了低廉的资费标准，邮政普遍服务要依据遍布于全国的邮政点，其中不少地处偏远地区， 投递一次来回需要花费10天以上的时间，主要是满足所有公民的基本通信需要；而快递服务主要是以市场为导向，为社会上特殊需要和有支付能力的部分成员提供个性化、限时送达的服务，属于竞争性的商业服务。从权利义务对等的角度来看二者不能等同视之。其次，2009年新《邮政法》颁布实施，明确将邮政特快专递业务与传统的普遍服务业务区分开来， 第45条第2款明确规定：“邮政普遍服务业务范围外地邮件的损失赔偿， 适用有关民事法律的规定。”根据国家邮政局副局长赵晓光介绍，快递邮件的损害赔偿适用于有关民事法律的规定，即赔偿额不受“资费3倍”的限制。〔4〕可见，《邮政法》中限额赔偿的规定不适用于快递业务，快递公司在承担损害赔偿责任时应依据《民法通则》、《合同法》、《侵权责任法》等法律来确定。

司法实践中，关于快递丢失毁损赔偿纠纷案件的案由也并不一致，有的确定为邮寄服务合同纠纷，有的确定为货物运输合同纠纷。快递服务合同不是《合同法》规定的有名合同，但双方的权利义务类似于运输合同，是寄件人与快递企业之间之间缔结的，以快递企业将寄件人所交付的物品快速给特定收件人为内容的合同。快递服务合同的特点与货物运输合同相似：合同的标的都是承运人运输货物的行为，承运人需将货物交付收货人才算履行完毕， 合同往往涉及第三人。〔5〕因此，此类案件案由宜确定为货物运输合同纠纷。

二、保价条款的效力

大多数快递公司的合同文本上都有保价条款， 即快递单上一般载明，寄件人在寄送快件时有权选择保价服务，未保价的快件损毁、灭失时，或者规定最高赔偿限额或者按照快件邮费的几倍赔偿。〔6〕快递丢失损毁后，是否适用、如何适用这些保价条款，在理论界和司法实务界都争议颇大。

（一）关于保价条款效力的意见分歧

第一种意见认为保价条款无效（或可撤销）。理由是快递公司拟定的保价条款违反公平原则，保价条款是限制快递公司赔偿责任、限制寄件人权利的格式条款。如杨立新教授认为，获得与其损失相当的违约赔偿系合同法赋予的法定权利，不能通过格式条款予以排除，因此，可以适用该条规定，确认这一格式条款的约定无效。〔7〕第二种意见和第三种意见都认为保价条款的效力取决于快递公司是否尽到提示、说明义务。其中第二种意见认为，运单背面的契约虽是格式合同， 但保价条款并未免除快递公司的责任、加重寄件人的责任或排除寄件人的主要权利。保价条款是当事人真实意思的体现，寄件人在运单上签字表明其接受被告的服务条款。快递公司对于快件在运送过程中发生丢失或损坏后的赔偿责任提供了两种风险模式即保价和不保价，如果寄件人明知其委托发运的快件价值较大，却不选择保价条款，应当承担自行选择的后果。尽管有关遗失赔偿的风险模式是快递公司提供的，但是寄件人享有自由选择权，这也体现了权利与义务的一致性原则。如果快递公司尽到提示、说明义务，应当认为该保价的格式条款是有效的。第三种意见认为，保价条款虽属限制快递公司赔偿责任的条款，但是如果快递公司尽到提示、说明义务，则应当认可该保价条款的效力；反之，如果快递公司没有尽到提示和说明的义务，即使寄件人在单据上签字，也不能认定寄件人与快递公司就该条款内容达成合意。

虽然笔者并不完全认同同案不同判的说法， 因为有的案件虽然大致案情相似，但每个案件的细节并不完全一样。尽管如此，通过对该类案件的梳理，还是很难否认司法实践中对于保价条款效力的认定确实比较混乱，主要体现如下。一是司法实践中存在对于保价条款的效力有着不同的认定。笔者调研的28件案件中有13件认定了保价条款无效，14件认定了保价条款有效，1件认定了保价条款可撤销。有的案件还出现了一审与二审截然相反的判决结果： 如上海翠景商贸公司与上海全一快递公司航空货物运输合同纠纷案，一审认定保价条款有效，二审认定保价条款可撤销；〔8〕北京千喜鸽快递公司与北京维诺尔计算机网络技术公司运输合同纠纷案，一审认定保价条款无效，二审认定保价条款有效；〔9〕杭州千一快递服务公司与建德市威龙家电公司公路运输合同纠纷案，一审认定保价条款无效，二审认定保价条款有效。〔10〕二是即使相同的裁判结果也有不同的裁判理由。有的判决对保价条款的效力予以回避不进行说理； 有的判决虽然结果一样，但是判决理由却并不相同，特别是对于保价条款是否属于免除（限制）快递公司赔偿责任、排除寄件人权利的格式条款等有不同的理解。

（二）保价条款效力争议较大的原因

1.关于格式条款的立法存在逻辑上的矛盾。《合同法》第39条规定，采用格式条款订立合同的，提供格式条款的一方应当遵循公平原则确定当事人之间的权利和义务，并采取合理的方式提请对方注意免除或者限制其责任的条款，按照对方的要求，对该条款予以说明。依此规定，如果提供格式条款的一方遵循公平原则，并依法履行了提示说明义务，格式条款中可以约定免除或者限制一方责任。但是《合同法》第40条又规定，提供格式条款一方免除其责任、加重对方责任、排除对方主要权利的，该条款无效。《合同法》第39条、第40条这两

条规定之间存在着矛盾的关系，“按照第39条第1款的规定，格式合同中的免责条款，如果履行了提示义务和说明义务就有效。法律通过时在第40条加上‘免除其责任’五字，导致依该条免责条款应绝对无效，因而与第39条和第53条的规定矛盾。”〔11〕根据最高法院《合同法》司法解释(二)第9条，提供格式条款的一方当事人违反提示和说明义务的，对方当事人享有撤销权。但是司法解释还是未解决格式条款的制定者如果尽到合理的提示、说明义务，免除或者限制其责任的格式条款是否一律无效（或撤销）的问题。这种矛盾就给当事人在交易时适用合同法造成了困难，也使司法机关办案时难以操作。

2.法院在认定保价条款效力时存在着公平原则考量下的两难困境。相同情况相同对待，不同情况不同对待，这是一种基本的公正观。法院处理案件的出发点是力图达到这一效果，但遇到具体案件时，对于什么样的结果是公平的往往存在不同的认识。司法实践中存在同样以公平为出发点的判决、但判决对公平有截然相反解读的情形。例如，太仓市天一网络技术公司与太仓市圆通快递公司邮寄服务合同纠纷案的判决书是这样理解公平的，“如果寄件人选择按不保价的模式交费以降低交易成本， 在物品遗失后却要求按保价的标准来赔偿，显然有违公平原则。”〔12〕在海京卫医药公司与上海高翔快递服务公司一般货运合同纠纷上诉案中，法院认为，“由于上诉人不愿付保价费，因此发生托运货物遗失的经济损失赔偿标准， 只能根据双方签订的协议书及快运单的有关规定予以确定， 如按上诉人的实际损失赔偿，则有违双方的约定，对被上诉人也不公平。”〔13〕而在毛国健与苏州和谐圆通快递公司公路货物运输合同纠纷案中，法院认为，“提供格式条款的一方应当遵循公平原则确定当事人之间的权利和义务，按资费的三倍赔偿，不足赔偿原告损失的10%，对原告不公平、不合理。”〔14〕在上海汉欣信息科技公司与上海古木快递服务公司服务合同纠纷案中， 判决书这样写道，“现被告在签收单上单方面拟定限制性条款，规定如物品毁损或灭失，最高赔偿800元/票，减轻了被告的赔偿责任，对原告显失公平，有违立法精神。”〔15〕

（三）笔者的观点

首先，从法律解释的角度来看，法律径行规定提供格式条款的一方免除或者限制其责任的条款的一律无效，显然是在处理上没有顾及契约自由和当事人的处分原则，而且其他国家或地区的立法上也一般不认为免除或者限制责任的条款绝对无效，特别是有些免除或限制责任的格式条款属于国际贸易惯例，如国际货物运输中广泛存在关于承运人责任限制的制度。“为此，必须区分5种情形。第一，格式免责条款隶属于的合同为《合同法》52条规定的无效合同，此时，格式条款必定无效；第二，若格式免责条款合乎《合同法》53条规定的无效免责条款种类，理当无效；第三，若格式免责条款指涉失权条款，即免除自己的主要义务或排除对方主要权利， 此时合同一开始丧失了根基，应当认定为无效；第四，若格式免责条款涉及到的仅仅是上述以外的情形，但合同显失公平的，应当认定为可变更、可撤销；第五，若不属于上述五种，应当为有效。”〔16〕

其次，从是否认可保价条款效力的后果来看，如果法院认可保价条款的效力， 那么快递公司就可以只按快递费的几倍进行赔偿， 其并未因快件的丢失遭受较大的经济损失，这就可能会纵容快递公司的不负责任，事后可能不会积极地追查丢失快件的下落； 由于快递公司没有全额赔偿，还可能助长快递公司员工利用职务便利侵吞、窃取快件的问题发生。相对于数额较小的赔付，其所得的非法利益会大得多，这无疑存在道德风险的问题。但是如果法院不认可保价条款的效力， 那么保价的和不保价的寄件人均获得一样的全额赔偿，在以后的快递业务中，寄件人还会选择保价吗？ 收取低廉运费的快递公司就要承担较高的赔偿责任风险和后果， 运输企业往往要承担巨大的经济损失，这样一来，不利于运输企业的发展壮大。同时，快递公司出于对高赔偿额的畏惧，还有可能在运输合同签订时就依一定的优势拒绝为寄件人运送贵重物品，这样势必不利于促进商品经济社会的商品流通。〔17〕

“两害相权取其轻”。笔者认为，如果快递公司运营比较规范，快递业步入健康发展的轨道，可以适时制定法规、行业标准，肯定最高限额赔偿条款的效力（最高限额不宜过低），最高限额以下按实际损失赔偿。当前，“快件丢失的原因主要与行业的经营方式，以及录用从业人员门槛较低有直接关系。”〔18〕在当快递行业不够规范，快件丢失毁损率相对较多的情况下，笔者认为，如果保价条款不属于《合同法》第52条规定的无效情形，也不属于造成对方人身伤害的或因故意或者重大过失造成对方财产损失的，快递公司尽到提示、说明义务的，应当认定为有效；快递公司未尽到提示、说明义务的，寄件人可以申请撤销该保价条款。

三、提示、说明义务的界定

对于提示、说明的方式、程度，不同判决中存在不同的认识。如陈瑾与圆通公司运输合同纠纷案，法院认为，“速递物流详情单上的限制赔偿责任条款采用了黑体字体，与其他条款在外观文字上明显不一致，圆通公司还在寄件人签名栏上方以黑体字提醒寄件人阅读背面的快递服务协议， 足以使寄件人陈瑾注意到快递服务协议中的限制赔偿责任条款，快递公司圆通公司履行了提醒、说明义务。”〔19〕而在常江因快递运输货物丢失诉吴鹏、韵达公司货物运输合同纠纷案中， 法院认为，“快递公司仅仅通过在运单正面印制少量的黑体字加以提示， 并没有尽到充分的提示、说明义务。”〔20〕

笔者认为，合理的提示、说明方式应依据以下因素综合判断。第一，提请注意的方法。以“个别提醒注意”为原则，根据具体的交易环境，快递企业应向寄件人明示其条款或以其他方式提醒寄件人注意。第二， 提请注意的时间。免责条款必须在快递服务合同订立之前或合同订立之时出示。第三，清晰明白的程度。“合理”的提示必须是以文字、符号、字体等引人注目的特别标识，在显著位置标出，从而使寄件人“一眼就能注意到”，并按照对方的要求对该格式条款予以说明。

在审理案件的过程中，对于提示、说明义务的方式和程度以及快递公司丢失快件的主观心态， 法官应严格审查，从严把握。

首先， 要严格审查快递公司在合同订立时是否采取合理的方式对保价条款予以说明， 这种说明包括但不限于采用足以引起对方注意的文字、符号、字体等特别标识。按照《快递业服务标准》5.1.2.3的规定，快递服务人员在收件时应询问和验视内件的性质和种类。为确保寄递渠道安全畅通，国家邮政局于2013年12月25日进一步提出加盖“收寄验视章”等管理措施：如发现未加盖“收寄验视章”的快件，一律视为未进行收寄验视，据此追究企业的管理责任。〔21〕因此，快递服务人员在验视过程中如能从形式上辨识出被寄物品是贵重物品，应建议寄件人购买保价或保险服务。而且快递公司要对已尽合理提示及说明义务承担举证责任。

其次，要审查快件丢失、损毁的原因是否是由于快递公司或其员工的故意或者重大过失，如系故意或者重大过失，保价条款当然无效。故意一般包括快递公司或其员工监守自盗、放任损毁灭失等；重大过失一般包括快递公司或其员工欠缺一般人具有的起码的注意义务导致货物丢失损毁或者对于货物丢失损毁的原因不能说明等。运输途中发生车祸等难以预见的事故导致货物损失的不属于重大过失。在丘钛微公司与昆山市全一快递公司运输合同纠纷案中，双方明确约定本案所涉货物的运输方式为汽运， 但被告在货物运至杭州过程中，未经原告同意改为空运方式，并且货物遗失也是在被告由汽运转空运的过程之中。〔22〕此外，快递公司不能提供货物收取、保存、运输的记录，事后也未采取任何补救措施，货物失踪的原因也未能说明。这些事实可以证明快递公司在合同履行中存在重大过失， 应当排除保价条款的适用。再如上文提到的上海翠景商贸公司与上海全一快递公司航空货物运输合同纠纷案中， 根据公安局的接报回执单以及相关笔录和录音， 快递公司明确承认是其将货物和助动车放在大楼门口，然后上楼取件，在人货分离20分钟后，货物和助动车一起被盗。快递公司的行为应属于重大过失，合同中保价条款无效。由于快递公司和寄件人之间信息的不对称，很难获知快件丢失损毁的原因，由寄件人证明快递公司存在故意或重大过失非常困难，因此，快递公司应承担其不具有故意或重大过失的举证责任。

四、赔偿数额的确定

如果保价条款被认定为有效， 则赔偿数额很好确定，即按照保价条款确定的标准进行赔偿。如果保价条款被撤销，则赔偿数额的确定就是一个值得讨论的问题。大多数确定保价条款无效的案例中，法院判决快递公司按照寄件人提供的证据所能证明的损失全额赔偿。还有一些案件中，赔偿数额的确定与法院自由裁量因素相关，包括对寄件人酌定进行赔偿或者适用过失相抵原则减轻快递公司的赔偿责任。

（一）是否适用酌定赔偿

司法实践中，法院适用酌定赔偿的原因，往往是法官通过对寄件人提交证据的判断， 能在内心确认寄件人损失的大概数额，但是由于寄件人提交的证据不够充分，从而作出一个折中裁量。

1.寄件人提交的证据不够充分

在榆林申通快递公司与袁某邮寄服务合同纠纷案的二审判决中， 虽然袁某称其从厂家是以衣服吊牌价的5.6折进货， 发货公司亦出具证明， 证明丢失羽绒服价格为3567元。但二审法院认为双方均未提交证据证明货物的进价，故对袁某的损失，酌情以衣服吊牌价的4折认定。〔23〕在上海诚中快递公司与上海泽世服装公司运输合同纠纷上诉案中， 泽世公司提供的相关依据证明了灭失货物的数量为271件服装， 但欲证明灭失货物的具体价值为58000元依据尚不充分，因货物已灭失，其价值无法估量，故依法酌情判处赔偿20300元。〔24〕

2.根据公平原则酌定赔偿

在甲快递公司与杨乙服务合同纠纷案中， 虽然杨乙是在淘宝网上达成一批服装交易， 交易金额为16291.94元，但最终赔偿额的确定，系由法院根据杨乙与交易对方的交易价格并结合公平合理原则酌定为12000元。〔25〕

3.寄件人提交的证据不够充分并结合公平原则酌定赔偿

在上文案例常江与吴鹏、韵达公司货物运输合同纠纷中， 原告主张其遗失的货物是从厂方以零售价4.8折的价格进货的，并提供特许经营协议书证明，法院认为原告未提供其他证据证实，结合公平原则，遗失货物的价值酌情按总货物的一半计算。

笔者认为，在损失数额的确定上，如果法官能够形成内心确信，在寄件人提交的证据虽不够充分的情况下，法官可以适当行使自由裁量权确定损失的数额，但这一数额要在损失货物的市场价值范围之内。在甲快递公司与杨乙服务合同纠纷案中，淘宝交易记录等证据能够证明交易金额，且交易金额未显著不正常，不存在虚假交易的可能，法院不宜酌情认定赔偿数额，可以按照这一证据链条确定的数额认定。

（二）可预期损失的范围

违约损害赔偿责任的承担原则上实行完全赔偿，包括实际的损失和可得利益损失， 但是要受到一些规则的限制。《合同法》第113条第1款确立了可预见性规则，即“损失赔偿额应当相当于因违约所造成的损失，包括合同履行后可以获得的利益，但不得超过违反合同一方订立合同时预见到或者应当预见到的因违反合同可能造成的损失。”关于损失是否属已预见或者应当预见到的，则要依据违约方在订立合同时实际知道或应当知道的事实和情势来判断。也就是说， 根据订约时而不是其他时候的情势来判断，而且要根据依违约方的身份、职业实际知道和应当知道的事实和情势来判断。〔26〕在毛国健与苏州和谐圆通快递公司公路货物运输合同纠纷案中， 毛国健花2600元购买石盆，快件丢失后毛国健以中国首届当代艺术石雕专场照片为依据，认为石盆具有收藏价值要求赔偿10000元，这样的诉讼请求显然就是超出可预期的收益之外的。在有的案件中，淘宝交易按卖出价成交并发货后丢失，法院往往会判决按照进价予以赔偿，笔者认为应区分具体案情，如果交易已成交并发货，卖出价应该是寄件人的可预期收益。在排除可能虚假交易的情况下，如果买方因快件损毁丢失要求卖

方退款，卖方退款后可以要求快递公司按卖出价赔偿。

（三）特殊物品的赔偿

特殊物品是指类似于人事档案、毕业证书、相册这样的物品，对于快递公司来说，其可能一文不值，但是对于它的所有者来说却是意义非凡，很难通过客观标准来评估和衡量其价值，也很难进行保价。上述物品丢失，会给所有人造成很大损失（包括精神损害），快递公司若仅仅以一张打印纸的价格来进行赔偿，则明显有违公平原则。笔者认为，快递丢失损毁赔偿纠纷存在违约责任与侵权责任的竞合，允许寄件人根据自身利益来选择请求权基础，寄件人邮寄的是对寄件人或者收件人有特殊意义的物品时，为了最大限度地保护民事权益，可以根据《侵权责任法》、《最高人民法院关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》的规定，以侵权为由起诉请求赔偿精神损害。当然，寄件人选择侵权之诉也将承担比违约之诉更高的举证责任。尽管这些特殊物品很难估价与保价， 但是与快递公司相比，寄件人更了解其价值，对于这些特殊物品，寄件人在邮寄时最好根据自己的心理评估的价值选择进行报价。

特殊物品赔偿数额的确定中还有一个比较有争议的问题，即发票被快递公司丢失、毁损或延误应如何赔偿的问题， 是按照发票本身的价值赔偿还是按照税款损失赔偿？ 司法实践中有的按照税款损失赔偿，如在南京中雪胶粘带制造公司与江苏申通物流公司、江苏申通物流公司南京分公司邮寄服务合同纠纷案中，〔27〕原告将装有239808.23元发票的快件交给申通南京分公司业务员，3个多月后对账发现，原告寄出的发票对方未收到。原告立即要求被告申通南京分公司查找。经查，申通南京分公司寄错地址延误了快递的到达时间，造成快件信封内的增值税发票不能在规定期限内抵扣（税法规定增值税发票开出后90天内可抵扣），造成原告直接经济损失34843.91元。法院最终判决申通南京分公司赔偿税款损失34843.91元， 申通公司承担补充责任。有的案件法院酌定赔偿数额。如在德宏电子（苏州） 有限公司与苏州中通速递有限公司运输合同纠纷案中，〔28〕法院认为，德宏公司的122656.28元损失已超出中通公司的合理预期。此外， 中通公司收取的快递资费仅为5元，德宏公司亦未按保价的规定申报价值并交纳额外的保价费用，根据公平原则，中通公司所承担的运输风险应与其获得的利益相当，不宜加诸过重的责任。综合上述原因，法院酌定判决中通公司赔偿德宏公司损失20000元。笔者认为，增值税发票比较特殊，发票本身价值并不高，但如果延误导致不能在规定期限内抵扣将导致较大的税款损失。快递服务人员在收取该快件及运送过程中无法判断发票的金额以及所涉税款的金额，自然也无法预见到由于其投递失误将造成较大的损失。故寄件人的损失已经超出了快递公司的合理预见范畴。故在违约之诉中，法院不宜判决按照税款损失进行全额赔偿，可以酌定进行适当赔偿。该类案件最好的选择是向原告释明其可以选择侵权之诉，法院可按照双方的过错程度分担税款损失来处理。

（作者单位：江苏省高级人民法院）

*本文是江苏省教育厅校外研究基地现代司法研究中心项目的研究成果。

参考文献

〔1〕参见“2013年前四个月中国快递业务量激增”，载http://gb.cri.cn/42071/2013/05/20/6071s4121430.htm，2013年11月9日访问。

〔2〕参见“去年快递丢件投诉占三成”，载《京华时报》2011年1月13日046版。

〔3〕参见（2005）沈中民（三）合终字第540号判决书。

〔4〕参见“快递‘先验货再签收’入法”，载《信息时报》2013年1月26日A14版。

〔5〕网购交易中的快递服务合同与代办托运不同，代办托运是独立于买卖合同之外的，而网购交易中的快递服务合同并不独立于买卖合同之外，

是卖方以自己的名义与承运人订立运输合同，只是在合同中约定收货人为买方而已，卖方并非代办托运。

〔6〕例如，中通快递快递单载明，快件丢失或短少的，按实际损失赔偿，但最高不超过1000元每票；韵达快递规定未报价的按资费5倍赔偿，顺丰快

递规定的赔偿数额为月结客户不超过运费的9倍，非月结客户不超过运费的7倍。

〔7〕杨立新：“确定快递服务丢失货物赔偿责任的三个问题”，载《中国审判》2010年第58期。

〔8〕参见(2009)沪二中民四(商)终字第623号判决书。

〔9〕参见(2009)京一中民终字第5125号判决书。

〔10〕参见(2009)浙杭商终字第540号判决书。

〔11〕梁慧星：“统一合同法：成功与不足”，载《中国法学》1999年第3期。

〔12〕参见（2010）太城商初字第0028号判决书。

〔13〕参见（2005）沪二中民四（商）终字第219号判决书。

〔14〕参见（2012）安商初字第0241号判决书。

〔15〕参见（2005）虹民二（商）初字第1139号判决书。

〔16〕周清林：“论格式免责条款的效力层次———兼谈《合同法》及其司法解释之间的矛盾及其协调”，载《现代法学》2011年第7期。

〔17〕高晶：“未保价运输货物之损害赔偿问题研究”，载http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2008/02/id/288478.shtml ，2013年11月9日访问。

〔18〕参见“加盟门槛低，快递业焉能不乱？ ”，载《羊城晚报》2010年11月3日A04版。

〔19〕参见（2010）江宁汤民初字第286号判决书。

〔20〕参见（2011）宿中民终字第1514号判决书。

〔21〕参见2013月12月26日《现代快报》A2版。

〔22〕参见（2012）昆商初字第1014号判决书。

〔23〕参见(2012)榆中法民三终字第00017号判决书。

〔24〕参见（2006）沪二中民四（商）终字第542号判决书。

〔25〕参见(2012)沪一中民一(民)终字第2153号判决书。

〔26〕参见刘晓夏：“快递延误造成损失应如何赔偿”，载《中国审判》2010年第58期。

〔27〕参见（2010）宁商终字第01071号判决书。

〔28〕参见（2010）苏中商终字第0446号判决书。

Authors: Shen Minglei and Dong Leilei, December 28, 2016

Abstract: In recent years, the number of disputes over express delivery service contracts has been increasing, which has brought a series of legal application challenges. In judicial practice, courts and judges in various regions have varying understandings of the legal basis for compensation for lost or damaged express delivery, the effectiveness of insurance clauses, the definition of express delivery companies' obligations to remind and explain, and the determination of compensation amounts, resulting in inconsistent or even completely opposite judgments on similar facts. This article is based on the collected relevant judicial documents, starting from case study methods, focusing on analyzing and attempting to solve the above controversial issues, and proposing specific handling suggestions.

Keywords: Express delivery loss, damage, insurance terms, instructions, obligations, compensation scope

In recent years, China's express delivery service industry, especially the private express delivery industry, has developed rapidly. According to statistics, from 2006 to 2012, the volume of express delivery business in China increased from 1 billion to 5.7 billion, with an average annual growth rate of 33.7%. The total scale has jumped to the second place in the world With the increase of total business volume, complaints against express delivery companies are also increasing. According to relevant personnel from the National Postal Administration, complaints about lost packages, short contents, and damaged packages account for about 30% of the total complaints At the same time, various express delivery disputes have also been brought to court, but due to different understandings of relevant legal norms, there is a significant controversy surrounding the legal issues of express delivery loss and damage. Based on more than 30 judgments collected, this article focuses on analyzing and attempting to solve controversial issues such as the effectiveness of insurance clauses, the choice of legal basis, and the determination of compensation amounts in cases of express delivery loss or damage using case study methods.

1、 Legal basis and cause of action determination for compensation for lost or damaged express delivery

According to Article 47 of the Postal Law, if uninsured vouchered postal materials are lost, damaged, or have short contents, compensation shall be made based on the actual loss, but the maximum amount of compensation shall not exceed three times the fee charged; If a registered letter is lost or damaged, compensation shall be made at three times the fee charged. According to the provisions of the Contract Law, the amount of compensation may be much higher than three times the fare, and the application of the Postal Law or the Contract Law will result in a significant difference in the amount of compensation. There were different approaches to this issue in judicial practice before the revision of the Postal Law, and some cases even made different choices in the first and second instance. In the postal contract dispute case between Chen Zejun and Shenyang Jiahuier Express Service Company, the sender entrusted the express delivery company to deliver the goods to Shenzhen. During transportation, the goods were accidentally lost due to the mistake of the courier company. It is reported that the express bill states that the content of the package is "memory", and the lost goods are 99 memory modules, with a total value of nearly 30000 yuan. The first instance court ruled that the express delivery company would compensate 30000 yuan for breach of contract. The court of second instance held that due to the fact that the express delivery company is a company authorized by relevant departments to engage in express delivery business, and based on the principle that special law is superior to general law, its professional behavior should be adjusted by the Postal Law. The original trial found that the relationship between the two parties was improper in the transportation contract 3]

There are also different viewpoints on this issue in theory. One view is that the Contract Law, General Principles of the Civil Law, and Postal Law are all laws formulated by the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee. The General Principles of Civil Law is the basic law, and according to the provisions of the Legislative Law, special laws should be applied first, and the provisions of the Postal Law should be applied for compensation. Another view is that private express delivery business is different from traditional postal service business, and the application of the Postal Law to compensate is unfair to the sender. The compensation for breach of contract losses of private express delivery companies should be subject to the general provisions of the Contract Law.

I agree with the second viewpoint. The new Postal Law of 2009 includes the express delivery service industry within the jurisdiction of the postal industry in Chapter 6, but this cannot deny the differences between the express delivery service industry and traditional postal service industry. Firstly, the universal postal service business has a public welfare nature, and the country has also set low tariff standards for it. Postal universal services should be based on postal points scattered throughout the country, many of which are located in remote areas, and a round-trip delivery takes more than 10 days, mainly to meet the basic communication needs of all citizens; And express delivery services are mainly market-oriented, providing personalized and limited delivery services for some members of society with special needs and payment capabilities, and belong to competitive commercial services. From the perspective of equal rights and obligations, the two cannot be equated. Secondly, in 2009, the new Postal Law was promulgated and implemented, clearly distinguishing the postal express delivery business from traditional universal service business. Article 45, paragraph 2, clearly stipulates: "The compensation for losses of mail outside the scope of postal universal service business shall be subject to relevant civil laws." According to Zhao Xiaoguang, Deputy Director of the National Postal Administration, the compensation for damages of express mail shall be subject to relevant civil laws, The compensation amount is not subject to the limit of "three times the fare" 4] It can be seen that the provisions on limited compensation in the Postal Law do not apply to express delivery business. Express delivery companies should determine their liability for damages in accordance with laws such as the General Principles of the Civil Law, the Contract Law, and the Tort Liability Law.

In judicial practice, the causes of disputes over compensation for lost or damaged express delivery services are also inconsistent. Some cases are determined to be disputes over postal service contracts, while others are determined to be disputes over goods transportation contracts. The express delivery service contract is not a well-known contract stipulated in the Contract Law, but the rights and obligations of both parties are similar to a transportation contract. It is a contract concluded between the sender and the express delivery enterprise, with the content of the express delivery enterprise quickly delivering the items delivered by the sender to a specific recipient. The characteristics of express delivery service contracts are similar to those of goods transportation contracts: the subject matter of the contract is the carrier's act of transporting the goods, and the carrier needs to deliver the goods to the recipient before it can be considered fulfilled. Contracts often involve third parties Therefore, the cause of action for such cases should be determined as a dispute over a contract for the carriage of goods.

2、 Effectiveness of insurance clauses

Most express delivery companies have insurance clauses in their contract documents, which generally state that the sender has the right to choose insurance services when delivering the package. When an uninsured package is damaged or lost, a maximum compensation limit or several times the postage on the package can be specified Whether and how to apply these insurance clauses after the loss or damage of express delivery is highly controversial in both theoretical and judicial practice.

（1） Differences in opinions on the effectiveness of insurance clauses

The first opinion holds that the insurance clause is invalid (or revocable). The reason is that the insurance terms proposed by the courier company violate the principle of fairness, and the insurance terms are standard clauses that limit the courier company's liability for compensation and the rights of the sender. Professor Yang Lixin believes that obtaining breach of contract compensation equivalent to its losses is a legal right granted by the Contract Law and cannot be excluded through standard clauses. Therefore, this provision can be applied to confirm the invalidity of this standard clause The second and third opinions both believe that the effectiveness of the insurance clause depends on whether the courier company fulfills its obligation to remind and explain. The second opinion is that although the contract on the back of the waybill is a standard contract, the insurance clause does not exempt the express delivery company from liability, increase the sender's liability, or exclude the sender's primary rights. The insurance clause reflects the true intention of the parties involved, and the sender's signature on the waybill indicates that they accept the defendant's service terms. The express delivery company provides two risk modes for compensation liability in the event of loss or damage to the package during transportation, namely insured and non insured. If the sender knows that the package entrusted for shipment has a significant value but does not choose the insured clause, they shall bear the consequences of their own choice. Although the risk model for loss compensation is provided by courier companies, the sender has the right to choose freely, which also reflects the principle of consistency between rights and obligations. If the courier company fulfills the obligation of prompt and explanation, it should be considered that the format terms of the insurance are valid. The third opinion holds that although the insurance clause is a clause that limits the compensation liability of the courier company, if the courier company fulfills the obligation of prompt and explanation, the effectiveness of the insurance clause should be recognized; On the contrary, if the courier company fails to fulfill the obligation of prompt and explanation, even if the sender signs the document, it cannot be deemed that the sender and the courier company have reached a consensus on the content of the terms.

Although the author does not fully agree with the statement of different judgments in the same case, because although some cases have similar circumstances, the details of each case are not completely the same. However, after sorting out such cases, it is still difficult to deny that the determination of the effectiveness of insurance clauses in judicial practice is indeed quite chaotic, mainly reflected in the following. One is that there are different opinions on the effectiveness of insurance clauses in judicial practice. Out of the 28 cases investigated by the author, 13 found the insurance clause invalid, 14 found the insurance clause valid, and 1 found the insurance clause revocable. In some cases, there have been completely opposite judgments in the first and second trials: for example, in the dispute over the air cargo transportation contract between Shanghai Cuijing Trading Company and Shanghai Quanyi Express Company, the first instance determined that the insurance clause was valid, and the second instance determined that the insurance clause could be revoked In the case of a dispute over the transportation contract between Beijing Qianxi Pigeon Express Company and Beijing Vinor Computer Network Technology Company, the first instance determined that the insurance clause was invalid, and the second instance determined that the insurance clause was valid In the case of a dispute over the highway transportation contract between Hangzhou Qianyi Express Service Company and Jiande Weilong Home Appliance Company, the first instance determined that the insurance clause was invalid, and the second instance determined that the insurance clause was valid The second reason is that even the same referee result has different referee reasons. Some judgments evade the validity of the insurance clause without reasoning; Although some judgments have the same results, the reasons for the judgments are not the same, especially with different interpretations of whether the insurance clause is a standard clause that exempts (limits) the liability of the courier company and excludes the rights of the sender.

（2） Reasons for significant disputes over the effectiveness of insurance clauses

There are logical contradictions in the legislation of standard clauses. Article 39 of the Contract Law stipulates that if a contract is concluded using standard terms, the party providing the standard terms shall follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations between the parties, and take reasonable measures to draw the other party's attention to the terms that exempt or limit their liability, and explain the terms according to the other party's requirements. According to this provision, if the party providing the standard terms follows the principle of fairness and fulfills the obligation of prompt explanation in accordance with the law, the standard terms may stipulate the exemption or limitation of one party's liability. However, Article 40 of the Contract Law stipulates that if the party providing a standard clause exempts it from its liability, increases the other party's liability, or excludes the other party's main rights, the clause shall be invalid. Articles 39 and 40 of the Contract Law

There is a contradictory relationship between the provisions of Article 39 (1). "According to Article 39 (1), the exemption clause in a standard contract is effective if the obligation of presentation and explanation is fulfilled. When the law is passed, the addition of the words' exemption from liability 'in Article 40 results in the exemption clause being absolutely invalid, thus contradicting the provisions of Article 39 and Article 53." [11] According to Article 9 of the Judicial Interpretation (II) of the Supreme Court's Contract Law, If the party providing the standard terms violates the obligation of prompt and explanation, the other party has the right to revoke it. However, judicial interpretation has not yet resolved the issue of whether the formulators of standard clauses, if they fulfill reasonable obligations to remind and explain, exempt or limit their liability, will all standard clauses be invalid (or revoked). This contradiction creates difficulties for the parties to apply the Contract Law during transactions, and also makes it difficult for judicial authorities to operate when handling cases.

2. The court faces a dilemma under the principle of fairness when determining the effectiveness of insurance clauses. Treating the same situation equally, but treating different situations differently is a basic concept of fairness. The starting point for courts to handle cases is to strive to achieve this effect, but when encountering specific cases, there are often different understandings of what outcome is fair. In judicial practice, there are situations where judgments based on fairness also have opposite interpretations of fairness. For example, the judgment on the dispute over the postal service contract between Taicang Tianyi Network Technology Company and Taicang Yuantong Express Company is understood as fair, If the sender chooses to pay in an uninsured manner to reduce transaction costs and demands compensation based on the insured value after the item is lost, it clearly violates the principle of fairness, Due to the appellant's unwillingness to pay the insurance fee, the compensation standard for economic losses caused by the loss of consigned goods can only be determined based on the agreement signed by both parties and the relevant provisions of the express waybill. If the actual loss compensation is based on the appellant, it would violate the agreement of both parties and be unfair to the appellant. "[13] In the dispute case between Mao Guojian and Suzhou Harmony Yuantong Express Company's road cargo transportation contract, the court held that, The party providing the standard terms should follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations between the parties, and compensate three times the fee, which is less than 10% of the plaintiff's losses. This is unfair and unreasonable to the plaintiff. "[14] In the dispute case between Shanghai Hanxin Information Technology Company and Shanghai Gumu Express Service Company, the judgment reads as follows:, The defendant unilaterally drafted restrictive clauses on the receipt, stipulating that if the item is damaged or lost, a maximum compensation of 800 yuan per ticket will be paid, reducing the defendant's liability for compensation. This is unfair to the plaintiff and violates the spirit of legislation

（3） The author's viewpoint

Firstly, from the perspective of legal interpretation, the provisions of the law that exempt or limit the liability of the party providing standard clauses are all invalid. It is obvious that they do not take into account the principles of contractual freedom and the disposal of the parties in their handling. Moreover, the legislation of other countries or regions generally does not consider clauses that exempt or limit liability to be absolutely invalid, especially some standard clauses that exempt or limit liability belong to international trade practices, There is a widespread system regarding the limitation of carrier liability in international cargo transportation. For this reason, it is necessary to distinguish five situations. Firstly, the contract to which the format exemption clause belongs is an invalid contract as stipulated in Article 52 of the Contract Law. In this case, the format clause must be invalid. Secondly, if the format exemption clause complies with the Contract Law The types of invalid exemption clauses stipulated in Article 53 should be deemed invalid; Thirdly, if the format exemption clause refers to a clause involving loss of rights, that is, exempting one's main obligations or excluding the other party's main rights, the contract loses its foundation at the beginning and should be deemed invalid; Fourthly, if the format exemption clause only involves situations beyond the above, but the contract is obviously unfair, it should be deemed as modifiable or revocable; Fifth, if it does not belong to the above five categories, it should be considered valid 16]

Secondly, from the perspective of whether or not to recognize the effectiveness of the insurance clause, if the court recognizes the effectiveness of the insurance clause, the courier company can only compensate a few times the courier fee, and it has not suffered significant economic losses due to the loss of the package. This may condone the irresponsible behavior of the courier company, and may not actively pursue the whereabouts of the lost package afterwards; Due to the lack of full compensation by the express delivery company, it may also encourage employees of the express delivery company to use their position to embezzle and steal packages. Compared to smaller compensation amounts, the illegal benefits obtained will be much greater, which undoubtedly poses a moral hazard issue. But if the court does not recognize the effectiveness of the insurance clause, then both insured and non insured senders will receive the same full compensation. Will the sender still choose insurance in future express delivery business? Express delivery companies that charge low freight rates have to bear high compensation liability risks and consequences, and transportation companies often have to bear huge economic losses, which is not conducive to the development and growth of transportation companies. At the same time, express delivery companies may refuse to transport valuable items to the sender based on certain advantages when signing the transportation contract, out of fear of high compensation, which is inevitably not conducive to promoting the circulation of goods in the economic and social sectors 17]

Choose the lesser of the two harms. The author believes that if the operation of express delivery companies is relatively standardized and the express delivery industry enters the track of healthy development, regulations and industry standards can be formulated in a timely manner to confirm the effectiveness of the maximum compensation clause (the maximum limit should not be too low), and compensation for actual losses below the maximum limit can be made. At present, the main reasons for the loss of express delivery are directly related to the operating methods of the industry and the low threshold for hiring employees. "[18] In the case where the express delivery industry is not standardized enough and the loss and damage rate of express delivery is relatively high, the author believes that if the insurance clause does not fall under the invalidity situation stipulated in Article 52 of the Contract Law, nor does it belong to causing personal injury to the other party or causing property damage to the other party due to intentional or gross negligence, If a courier company fulfills its obligation to remind and explain, it shall be deemed effective; If the courier company fails to fulfill the obligation of prompt and explanation, the sender may apply for the cancellation of the insurance clause.

3、 Definition of Obligation to Remind and Explain

There are different understandings in different judgments regarding the way and extent of prompts and explanations. In the case of transportation contract dispute between Chen Jin and Yuantong Company, the court believes that, The limited liability clause on the express logistics details sheet is in bold font, which is significantly different from other clauses in appearance. Yuantong Company also reminds the sender to read the express service agreement on the back in bold font above the sender's signature column, which is enough to make the sender Chen Jin aware of the limited liability clause in the express service agreement. Yuantong Company has fulfilled its obligation to remind and explain 〔19〕 In the case of Changjiang's lawsuit against Wu Peng and Yunda Company over the loss of goods transported by express delivery, the court held that "the express delivery company only printed a small amount of bold characters on the front of the waybill to provide prompt information, and did not fulfill the full obligation of prompt and explanation

The author believes that a reasonable prompt and explanation method should be based on a comprehensive judgment of the following factors. Firstly, the method of drawing attention. Based on the principle of "individual reminders" and depending on the specific transaction environment, express delivery companies should clearly indicate their terms to the sender or remind the sender to pay attention in other ways. Secondly, the time for attention. The exemption clause must be presented before or at the time of signing the express delivery service contract. Thirdly, the level of clarity and clarity. The "reasonable" prompt must be prominently marked with words, symbols, fonts, etc. in a prominent position, so that the sender can "notice it at a glance" and explain the format terms according to the other party's requirements.

In the process of hearing a case, judges should strictly review and grasp the manner and extent of the obligation to prompt and explain, as well as the subjective mentality of the courier company in losing the package.

Firstly, it is necessary to strictly examine whether the courier company has adopted a reasonable way to explain the insurance terms when signing the contract, including but not limited to using special markings such as text, symbols, fonts, etc. that are sufficient to attract the other party's attention. According to 5.1.2.3 of the Service Standards for the Express Industry, courier service personnel should inquire and inspect the nature and type of the contents when receiving them. In order to ensure the safety and smooth flow of delivery channels, the National Postal Administration further proposed management measures such as affixing the "receiving and mailing inspection seal" on December 25, 2013: If any express without affixing the "receiving and mailing inspection seal" is found, it will be deemed that the receiving and mailing inspection has not been carried out, and the management responsibility of the enterprise will be investigated accordingly Therefore, if the courier service personnel can formally identify the sent item as a valuable item during the inspection process, they should advise the sender to purchase insured or insurance services. Moreover, the courier company shall bear the burden of proof for having fulfilled the obligation of reasonable reminder and explanation.

Secondly, it is necessary to examine whether the reason for the loss or damage of the package is due to the intentional or gross negligence of the courier company or its employees. If it is intentional or gross negligence, the insurance clause is of course invalid. Intentionally, it generally includes theft by courier companies or their employees, indulgence in damage and destruction, etc; Gross negligence generally includes the fact that a courier company or its employees lack the minimum duty of care that ordinary people possess, resulting in the loss or damage of goods, or the inability to explain the reasons for the loss or damage of goods. Unforeseeable accidents such as car accidents during transportation that result in loss of goods are not considered gross negligence. In the transportation contract dispute case between Qiu Ti Micro Company and Kunshan Quanyi Express Company, both parties clearly agreed that the transportation method of the goods involved in this case was by car. However, during the transportation of the goods to Hangzhou, the defendant changed to air freight without the plaintiff's consent, and the loss of the goods was also during the defendant's process of transferring from car to air freight In addition, the courier company cannot provide records of the receipt, storage, and transportation of the goods, and no remedial measures have been taken afterwards. The reason for the disappearance of the goods has not been explained. These facts can prove that the courier company has gross negligence in the performance of the contract, and the application of the insurance clause should be excluded. As mentioned earlier, in the dispute over the air cargo transportation contract between Shanghai Cuijing Trading Company and Shanghai Quanyi Express Company, based on the receipt from the Public Security Bureau, as well as relevant records and recordings, the express delivery company explicitly admitted that it was they who placed the goods and the motor vehicle at the entrance of the building and then went upstairs to pick them up. After 20 minutes of separation between the goods and the people, the goods and the motor vehicle were both stolen. The behavior of the courier company should be considered gross negligence, and the insurance clause in the contract is invalid. Due to the asymmetry of information between the courier company and the sender, it is difficult to know the reason for the loss or damage of the package. It is very difficult for the sender to prove that the courier company has intentional or gross negligence. Therefore, the courier company should bear the burden of proof that it did not have intentional or gross negligence.

4、 Determination of compensation amount

If the insurance clause is deemed valid, the amount of compensation is easily determined, that is, compensation will be made according to the standards determined by the insurance clause. If the insurance clause is revoked, determining the amount of compensation is a topic worth discussing. In most cases where the insurance clause is determined to be invalid, the court has ruled that the courier company will compensate in full for the losses that can be proven by the evidence provided by the sender. In some cases, the determination of the amount of compensation is related to court discretion factors, including compensating the sender at their discretion or applying the principle of fault offset to reduce the liability of the courier company.

（1） Is discretionary compensation applicable

In judicial practice, the reason why courts apply discretionary compensation is often because judges can confirm the approximate amount of losses suffered by the sender through their judgment of the evidence submitted by the sender. However, due to insufficient evidence submitted by the sender, a compromise judgment is made.

1. The evidence submitted by the sender is not sufficient

In the second instance judgment of the dispute over the mailing service contract between Yulin Shentong Express Company and Yuan, although Yuan claimed that he purchased from the manufacturer at a price of 5.6% off the clothing tag, the shipping company also issued a certificate proving that the lost down jacket was priced at 3567 yuan. However, the second instance court held that neither party had submitted evidence to prove the purchase price of the goods, so the loss of Yuan was determined at a discretion of 40% off the clothing tag price In the appeal case of the transportation contract dispute between Shanghai Chengzhong Express Company and Shanghai Zeshi Clothing Company, Zeshi Company provided relevant evidence to prove that the number of lost goods was 271 pieces of clothing. However, the evidence to prove the specific value of the lost goods was 58000 yuan is not sufficient. As the goods have been lost and their value cannot be estimated, a compensation of 20300 yuan is imposed in accordance with the law 24]

2. Determine compensation based on the principle of fairness

In the dispute case between A Express Company and Yang Yi regarding the service contract, although Yang Yi entered into a batch of clothing transactions on Taobao with a transaction amount of 16291.94 yuan, the final compensation amount was determined by the court based on the transaction price between Yang Yi and the counterparty, combined with the principle of fairness and reasonableness 25]

3. The evidence submitted by the sender is insufficient and compensation is determined based on the principle of fairness

In the dispute over the goods transportation contract between Changjiang, Wu Peng, and Yunda Company in the previous case, the plaintiff claimed that the lost goods were purchased from the factory at a retail price of 4.8% off, and provided proof of the franchise agreement. The court found that the plaintiff did not provide any other evidence to prove it, and based on the principle of fairness, the value of the lost goods was calculated at half of the total goods as appropriate.

The author believes that in determining the amount of loss, if the judge can form inner conviction that although the evidence submitted by the sender is not sufficient, the judge can exercise appropriate discretion to determine the amount of loss, but this amount should be within the market value of the lost goods. In the dispute case between A Express Company and Yang Yi's service contract, evidence such as Taobao transaction records can prove the transaction amount, and the transaction amount is not significantly abnormal, so there is no possibility of false transactions. The court should not determine the compensation amount at its discretion, but can determine the amount based on this evidence chain.

（2） Scope of foreseeable losses

The principle of assuming liability for breach of contract damages is to implement full compensation, including actual losses and losses of available benefits, but subject to certain rules. Article 113 (1) of the Contract Law establishes the rule of predictability, which states that "the amount of compensation for losses shall be equivalent to the losses caused by the breach of contract, including the benefits that can be obtained after the performance of the contract, but shall not exceed the potential losses caused by the breach of contract that the breaching party had foreseen or should have foreseen at the time of entering into the contract." Regarding whether the losses were foreseeable or should have been foreseen, The judgment should be based on the facts and circumstances that the defaulting party actually knew or should have known at the time of signing the contract. That is to say, the judgment should be based on the situation at the time of the contract, rather than other times, and should be based on the facts and circumstances that the defaulting party actually knows and should know based on their identity and profession In the dispute over the road cargo transportation contract between Mao Guojian and Suzhou Harmony Yuantong Express Company, Mao Guojian spent 2600 yuan to purchase a stone basin. After the parcel was lost, Mao Guojian claimed compensation of 10000 yuan based on the photos of China's first contemporary art stone carving exhibition, believing that the stone basin had collectible value. Such a lawsuit request is clearly beyond the expected benefits. In some cases, Taobao transactions are lost after being sold at the selling price and shipped, and the court often awards compensation based on the purchase price. The author believes that specific cases should be distinguished. If the transaction has been sold and shipped, the selling price should be the expected return of the sender. If the buyer requests to sell due to damage or loss of the package, excluding the possibility of false transactions

The seller can request compensation from the courier company based on the selling price after the refund.

（3） Compensation for special items

Special items refer to items such as personnel files, graduation certificates, and photo albums. For a courier company, they may be worthless, but for their owners, they are of great significance, making it difficult to evaluate and measure their value through objective standards, and it is also difficult to guarantee their value. The loss of the above-mentioned items will cause significant losses (including mental damage) to everyone. If the courier company only compensates for it at the price of one printed paper, it clearly violates the principle of fairness. The author believes that there is a confluence of breach of contract liability and tort liability in the dispute of compensation for lost or damaged express delivery, allowing the sender to choose the basis of the right of claim based on their own interests. When the sender sends items with special significance to the sender or recipient, in order to maximize the protection of civil rights and interests, according to the Tort Liability Law According to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Determination of Liability for Compensation for Mental Damage in Civil Torts, a lawsuit is filed for compensation for mental damage on the grounds of infringement. Of course, the shipper's choice to sue for infringement will also bear a higher burden of proof than a lawsuit for breach of contract. Although these special items are difficult to value and insure, compared to courier companies, senders understand their value better. For these special items, it is best for senders to choose a quote based on their psychological evaluation of the value when mailing.

There is also a controversial issue in determining the compensation amount for special items, which is how to compensate for the loss, damage, or delay of the invoice by the courier company. Is it based on the value of the invoice itself or on tax losses? In judicial practice, there are cases where compensation is based on tax losses. For example, in the dispute over the mailing service contract between Nanjing Zhongxue Adhesive Tape Manufacturing Company, Jiangsu Shentong Logistics Company, and Jiangsu Shentong Logistics Company Nanjing Branch, the plaintiff handed over the express package containing an invoice of 239808.23 yuan to the salesperson of Shentong Nanjing Branch. After more than three months of reconciliation, it was found that the invoice sent by the plaintiff was not received by the other party. The plaintiff immediately requested the defendant Shentong Nanjing Branch to search. After investigation, Shentong Nanjing Branch sent the wrong address and delayed the delivery time, causing the value-added tax invoice inside the package to be unable to be deducted within the specified period (according to tax law, the value-added tax invoice can be deducted within 90 days after issuance), resulting in a direct economic loss of 34843.91 yuan for the plaintiff. The court ultimately ruled that Shentong Nanjing Branch compensated for tax losses of 34843.91 yuan, and Shentong Company bears supplementary responsibility. In some cases, the court determines the amount of compensation. In the case of a transportation contract dispute between Dehong Electronics (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Zhongtong Express Co., Ltd., the court held that Dehong's loss of 122656.28 yuan exceeded Zhongtong's reasonable expectations. In addition, the express delivery fee charged by Zhongtong Company is only 5 yuan, and Dehong Company has not declared the value and paid additional insurance fees according to the insurance regulations. According to the principle of fairness, the transportation risk borne by Zhongtong Company should be equivalent to the benefits it obtains, and excessive responsibility should not be added. Based on the above reasons, the court has ruled that Zhongtong Company shall compensate Dehong Company with a loss of 20000 yuan. The author believes that value-added tax invoices are quite special, and the value of the invoice itself is not high. However, if delayed and cannot be deducted within the specified period, it will result in significant tax losses. The courier service personnel are unable to determine the amount of the invoice and the amount of taxes involved during the collection and transportation of the package, and naturally cannot foresee significant losses due to their delivery errors. Therefore, the loss of the sender has exceeded the reasonable foreseeable scope of the courier company. Therefore, in a lawsuit for breach of contract, the court should not award full compensation based on tax losses, but may decide to make appropriate compensation. The best choice for this type of case is to explain to the plaintiff that they can choose to sue for infringement, and the court can handle the tax losses based on the degree of fault of both parties.

(Author's unit: Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court)

*This article is the research result of the Modern Judicial Research Center project at the Off campus Research Base of the Jiangsu Provincial Department of Education.

References

〔1〕 Please refer to "China's express delivery business volume surged in the first four months of 2013" http://gb.cri.cn/42071/2013/05/20/6071s4121430.htm Visited on November 9, 2013.

〔2〕 Refer to "30% of complaints about lost packages in express delivery last year", published in the 046 edition of the Beijing Times on January 13, 2011.

〔3〕 Refer to Judgment No. 540 of Shen Zhongmin (III) Hezhong Zi (2005).

〔4〕 Please refer to the "Express Delivery 'Inspection before Receipt' Entry Method", published in the A14 edition of the Information Times on January 26, 2013.

〔5〕 The express delivery service contract in online shopping transactions is different from the consignment service contract. The consignment service contract is independent of the sales contract, while the express delivery service contract in online shopping transactions is not independent of the sales contract,

The seller enters into a transportation contract with the carrier in their own name, only stating that the consignee is the buyer in the contract, and the seller does not handle the shipment on behalf of the carrier.

〔6〕 For example, the express bill of China Express states that if the package is lost or short, compensation will be made based on the actual loss, but the maximum amount shall not exceed 1000 yuan per shipment; Yunda Express stipulates that if there is no quotation, compensation will be paid at 5 times the price. SF Express

The compensation amount stipulated by the delivery regulations shall not exceed 9 times the shipping cost for monthly customers and 7 times the shipping cost for non monthly customers.

〔7〕 Yang Lixin: "Three Issues on Determining Compensation Liability for Lost Goods in Express Delivery Services", published in China Trial, Issue 58, 2010.

〔8〕 Please refer to the (2009) Hu Er Zhong Min Si (Shang) Zhong Zi No. 623 judgment.

〔9〕 Refer to Judgment No. 5125 of Jingyi Zhongmin Zhong Zi (2009).

〔10〕 Please refer to the (2009) Zhehang Shangzhong Zi No. 540 judgment.

〔11〕 Liang Huixing: "Unified Contract Law: Success and Shortcomings", published in China Law Journal, 1999, Issue 3.

〔12〕 Please refer to the judgment (2010) Taicheng Shangchu Zi No. 0028.

〔13〕 Refer to the (2005) Hu Er Zhong Min Si (Shang) Zhong Zi No. 219 judgment.

〔14〕 Please refer to the judgment (2012) Anshangchu Zi No. 0241.

〔15〕 Please refer to the (2005) Hongmin Er (Shang) Chu Zi No. 1139 judgment.

〔16〕 Zhou Qinglin: "On the Effectiveness Levels of Format Exemption Provisions - Also on the Contradictions and Coordination between the Contract Law and its Judicial Interpretation", published in Modern Law, 2011, Issue 7.

〔17〕 Gao Jing: "Research on Compensation for Damage Caused by Uninsured Transportation of Goods", published in http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2008/02/id/288478.shtml Visited on November 9, 2013.

〔18〕 Refer to "Low franchise threshold, how can the express delivery industry not be chaotic?", published in the A04 edition of the Yangcheng Evening News on November 3, 2010.

〔19〕 Refer to Judgment No. 286 of Jiangning Tang Min Chu Zi (2010).

〔20〕 Refer to Judgment No. 1514 of Suzhong Minzhong Zi (2011).

[21] Please refer to the A2 edition of Modern Express on December 26, 2013.

[22] Please refer to the judgment (2012) Kun Shang Chu Zi No. 1014.

[23] Please refer to the (2012) Yuzhong Famin Sanzhong Zi No. 00017 Judgment.

[24] Please refer to the (2006) Hu Er Zhong Min Si (Shang) Zhong Zi No. 542 judgment.

[25] Please refer to the judgment (2012) Hu Yi Zhong Min Yi (Min) Zhong Zi No. 2153.

[26] Refer to Liu Xiaoxia: "How to compensate for losses caused by express delivery delays", published in China Trial, Issue 58, 2010.

[27] Please refer to the judgment (2010) Ning Shang Zhong Zi No. 01071.

[28] Please refer to the (2010) Su Zhong Shang Zhong Zi No. 0446 judgment.