Courier not accepting any liability for lost/damaged items?
Discussion
Hi all, managed to flog an old tablet on eBay yesterday so was looking for cheap couriers to get it delivered.
I found one well known brand (not any of the much maligned ones on here) that was a reasonable price, but wanted an additional 7.5% of the value of the parcel as a premium to insure it against any loss or damage. Without that premium being paid, they stated that no liability would be accepted by them.
Given that we are blessed with a legal system based on the principle of reasonableness, I wondered just how defensible their position would be - after all, if you're paying a professional courier to deliver a parcel and they lose or damage it, surely that is de facto negligence and therefore actionable in civil court to the extent of the loss or damage?
The exact term is:
I found one well known brand (not any of the much maligned ones on here) that was a reasonable price, but wanted an additional 7.5% of the value of the parcel as a premium to insure it against any loss or damage. Without that premium being paid, they stated that no liability would be accepted by them.
Given that we are blessed with a legal system based on the principle of reasonableness, I wondered just how defensible their position would be - after all, if you're paying a professional courier to deliver a parcel and they lose or damage it, surely that is de facto negligence and therefore actionable in civil court to the extent of the loss or damage?
The exact term is:
Courier said:
We see you have entered your items value totaling £XXX.00. Please note that as no protection was purchased, you will not be protected for loss or damage and we strongly advise you to protect your item for the full value. Also please note that you are responsible for certifying the true value of the parcel's contents.
Would any legal bods like to chime in with their opinion? the_lone_wolf said:
youngsyr said:
Given that we are blessed with a legal system based on the principle of reasonableness...
youngsyr said:
Well, it's extremely reasonable in comparison to the US system, for example, where someone successfully sued McDonalds for $3m because they burned themselves whilst removing the lid of a cup of coffee which they were holding between their thighs.
Very true Given that Royal Mail seem to be able to deny liability other than the cost of service unless you purchase an insured delivery option, I would have thought this courier would be able to do the same, but I'm happy to be proved wrong
I had a quick look around and it seems that it's perfectly acceptable to limit either party's risk to a specified limit in a contract, even for negligence, except there cannot be any limit for negligence causing death or personal injury.
However, it seems the grey area might come into play as from what I've read a liability limit cannot excuse one party failing to complete the main purpose of the contract. In this case, the entire purpose of the contract is for the courier to deliver the parcel. IF it fails to do so, it would seem to me that it has failed to complete its part of the contract, so negligence wouldn't even come into it.
That must be far too simplistic an understanding of the situation though, as you say, the Royal Mail and every other courier limits its liability to zero in such circumstances, so you'd expect them to have a legal basis to do so.
However, it seems the grey area might come into play as from what I've read a liability limit cannot excuse one party failing to complete the main purpose of the contract. In this case, the entire purpose of the contract is for the courier to deliver the parcel. IF it fails to do so, it would seem to me that it has failed to complete its part of the contract, so negligence wouldn't even come into it.
That must be far too simplistic an understanding of the situation though, as you say, the Royal Mail and every other courier limits its liability to zero in such circumstances, so you'd expect them to have a legal basis to do so.
youngsyr said:
However, it seems the grey area might come into play as from what I've read a liability limit cannot excuse one party failing to complete the main purpose of the contract.
I suspect that the amount of liability in that instance is limited to the amount you have put forward under the contract, ie: The postage cost...Perhaps more interesting would be the contract you have with the seller, you have paid XYZ and in return they have promised to do what? That a tablet will arrive at your door? That they will post a tablet to you in good faith that it will arrive?
Depending on the seller's terms of business they may be liable should the package not arrive, or they may deny liability, or they may deny liability that contravenes the DSR (now superceded?)
In short, its most likely incredibly complicated
youngsyr said:
Well, it's extremely reasonable in comparison to the US system, for example, where someone successfully sued McDonalds for $3m because they burned themselves whilst removing the lid of a cup of coffee which they were holding between their thighs.
Although partly true (the eventual payout that was agreed was just over $500k), there is a bit more to the McDonalds coffee story than just someone getting burnt after spilling a brew.In fact, there was a TV programme recently which focussed on court cases for libel damages & so on and the UK legal system is far more "award happy" than the US - so much so that wherever possible the claimant (when from the US) would always try to get the case heard in the UK.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff