Courier not accepting any liability for lost/damaged items?

Courier not accepting any liability for lost/damaged items?

Author
Discussion

youngsyr

Original Poster:

14,742 posts

191 months

Thursday 19th November 2015
quotequote all
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:

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? smile


the_lone_wolf

2,622 posts

185 months

Thursday 19th November 2015
quotequote all
youngsyr said:
Given that we are blessed with a legal system based on the principle of reasonableness...


wink

youngsyr

Original Poster:

14,742 posts

191 months

Thursday 19th November 2015
quotequote all
the_lone_wolf said:
youngsyr said:
Given that we are blessed with a legal system based on the principle of reasonableness...


wink
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. wink

the_lone_wolf

2,622 posts

185 months

Thursday 19th November 2015
quotequote all
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. wink
Very true biggrin

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 smile

youngsyr

Original Poster:

14,742 posts

191 months

Thursday 19th November 2015
quotequote all
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.

the_lone_wolf

2,622 posts

185 months

Thursday 19th November 2015
quotequote all
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 biggrin

stevebroad

442 posts

235 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
As I understand it, the seller is responsible for the safe delivery of sold item, whether deliverd personally by hand or via a courier. If there is a problem it is the responsibility of the seller to resolve it. It is up to him whether he gets insurance to cover any loss or damage.

Ken Figenus

5,678 posts

116 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
Interesting point as I have in the past insisted on taking a 20k camera in to be serviced personally and by my own hand. They generally send it back using a std courier... Insuring the items against the couriers using the couriers is generally stupid prices...

northwest monkey

6,370 posts

188 months

Sunday 22nd November 2015
quotequote all
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. wink
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.