Classic case of shipping: The bill of lading is lost, DHL compensates the cargo owner 3.16 million

What are international logistics practitioners most afraid of?

It’s not a delay, it’s not a price increase, it’s not a typhoon, it’s not an undercharge of thirty or fifty yuan in freight, it’s—the bill of lading is lost!

Cause of the case:

< p> In December 2009, Guohua Company (the owner of the cargo) shipped goods to Greece in accordance with the sales contract entered into with the Greek VA Company (the consignee).

In January 2010, Guohua Company entrusted ICBC Jimo to collect payment from Greek VA Company. Guohua Company specified that the collection business should be handled in accordance with the "Uniform Collection Rules", and the collection amount was: 381,888.51 US dollars, and the collection items also included the documents attached to the collection

In January 2010, ICBC Qingdao Branch filled out the freight bill and sealed the document, and DHL Shandong Company was responsible for it. Send a document including an ocean bill of lading under the collection item. The recipient and delivery address stated in the freight bill are the names and addresses specified by Guohua Company as mentioned above. In the freight bill, "the items to be shipped" Fill in the "Detailed Description" column as "File".

The rights and obligations of the sender and carrier, liability for breach of contract, and liability of the carrier in this express delivery business were signed between ICBC Qingdao Branch and DHL Shandong Company on January 1, 2010. Determined by the corresponding provisions in the "Sinotrans-DHL Transportation Service Contract" and the "DHL Transportation Terms and Conditions" of 2018. Jimo Industrial Bank paid the express fee of RMB 148.48 for this express transportation service

An accident occurred:

According to the query records provided by DHL Shandong Company, the express shipment was shipped on February 2, 2010 It arrived in Athens, Greece on the same day. On the same day, DHL transferred it to a third-party delivery company and could not get the receipt result.

On February 3, the express package was delivered and signed for.

On April 1, 2010, the Beijing Branch of Sinotrans-DHL International Air Express Co., Ltd. gave written feedback to ICBC Qingdao Branch about the delivery status of the express shipment. The content was: The express shipment was delivered on January 29, 2010, Beijing time. The shipment was delivered to DHL Sinotrans from China to Greece.

DHL reported that the actual recipient of the shipment, MR.GREMOTSIS, had called DHL to request a change of delivery address. After receiving the customer's request, the Greek DHL delivery agent delivered the express to the new address on February 3 in accordance with the customer's request. Through local investigation in Greece, it was learned that the new address provided by the actual recipient MR.GREMOTSIS was a store address ( The name of the store is: The World of Carpet & Moquette). The delivery agent will deliver the express package directly to this store. However, the store has closed down, the signer is missing, and the express package cannot be retrieved.

At the end of 2010, Guohua Company brought a lawsuit to the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court with Jimo Workers as the defendant and DHL Shandong Company as the third party.

Accordingly, the final judgment of the case determined that Jimo ICBC should compensate Guohua Company in the amount of RMB 2,607,496 and interest. During the execution of the case, under the auspices of the court, Jimo ICBC and Guohua Company reached an enforcement settlement, and Jimo ICBC actually paid RMB 3,153,708.63 to Guohua Company.

The first instance of the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court held that: According to the above provisions of the contract, the express package transported by DHL Shandong Company in this case should be delivered to the address stated on the surface of the express waybill. It is reported that the behavior of the Greek agent of DHL Shandong Company was in line with the usual operating practices of the industry, and its behavior of changing the delivery address did not constitute a breach of contract.

DHL Shandong also failed to provide evidence to prove that its agent in Greece took reasonable and prudent measures to verify the identity of MR.GREMOTSIS after receiving the call. At the same time, when delivering the goods to the actual delivery address, its Greek agent did not verify whether there was an authorized relationship between the address and the actual signer of the express shipment and the recipient stated on the express freight bill.

The delivery behavior is in line with industry practices. Even if such delivery practices do exist in the express delivery industry, such practices violate the mandatory provisions of the law that the contract parties should perform their contractual obligations reasonably, prudently and in good faith. It may cause heavy losses to the sender and should not be recognized and protected by law.

In summary, DHL Shandong Company's misdirection behavior during the express delivery process has constituted a breach of contract, and it shall bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract to ICBC Jimo in accordance with the law and the contract.

Regarding the second focus issue, according to the provisions of Article 113 of my country's "Contract Law", if one party to the contract breaches the contract and causes losses to the other party, ICBC Qingdao Branch, the entrusted agent of Jimo ICBC DHL Shandong was not informed of the nature of the express between the time it was delivered and when it was misdirected. The defendant DHL Shandong had no obligation to review the content and value of the express delivery documents. In practice, DHL Shandong also had no opportunity to understand the nature of the documents. content, value, and the freight bill only describes the goods sent as "documents".

If the bank believes that the documents or goods delivered are of high value or are very important, it shall and has the opportunity to make a good faith notification or reminder to the express carrier. ICBC Jimo and its trustee, ICBC Qingdao Branch, cannot Fulfilling this notification obligation was ICBC Jimo's fault during the performance of the transportation service contract.

According to the transportation service contract in this case, the "transportation service" in this case refers to the express delivery service provided by DHL Shandong Company for ICBC Qingdao Branch. Therefore, the delivery process of express mail should also be included in the transportation process. , the amount of liability for breach of contract due to misdelivery of express items shall also be handled in accordance with the provisions of the contract.

1. Sinotrans-DHL International Air Express Co., Ltd. Shandong Branch reimbursed the Jimo Branch of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Co., Ltd. for express freight of RMB 148.48.

2. Sinotrans-DHL International Air Express Co., Ltd. Shandong Branch compensated the plaintiff Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Co., Ltd. Jimo Branch for damages of US$100.

MOIC was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed: As a professional express delivery company, the respondent should, after accepting the client’s entrustment, strictly follow the contract and the code of conduct of the express delivery industry, and clearly state the express delivery documents. The address was delivered safely to the recipient in a timely manner, but the respondent violated the basic standards of the express delivery industry and the contract and directly handed over the express package containing the above documents to the consignee, which resulted in the goods involved in the case being taken away by the consignee. , causing the consignor to lose all payment.

According to the provisions of Article 53 of my country’s Contract Law and Article 47, Paragraph 3 of the Postal Law, misdirection is intentional or grossly negligent and does not enjoy exemption or limitation of liability. rights. In January 2009, DHL's Weihai Branch finally compensated Shirong Company for all the loss of payment due to the wrong delivery of receipts for collection by Bank of China Weihai Branch.

"Failure to do as agreed" will at most constitute a breach of contract, but it is not necessarily an "intentional breach of contract". In this case, although the respondent committed certain negligence by failing to check the identity of the recipient during the delivery of the express mail, this negligence obviously did not constitute "intentional intent."

However, in this case, the appellant not only failed to disclose the value of the documents sent, but also did not insure the value or purchase insurance. Therefore, the respondent had no possibility of foreseeing the amount of losses claimed by the appellant. sex. Therefore, the original judgment was completely correct in determining that the appellant’s claim amount obviously exceeded the respondent’s reasonable foreseeability.

DHL Shandong Company stated that DHL Greece changed the express delivery address based on the telephone notification request of MR.GREMOTSIS, but did not provide relevant evidence of the call and the content of the call.

When DHL Greece delivers the express to the consignee, the Greek VA company, it not only knows the content and value of the various documents in the express, but can also foresee the delivery to the Greek VA company other than the collecting bank. Possible losses caused by bills of lading and bank collection documents.

Therefore, the court of first instance found that DHL Shandong Co., Ltd. was not aware of the items and value of the express delivery during the express delivery process, which was contrary to common sense, because DHL Shandong Co., Ltd. could not foresee the possible losses caused by breach of contract due to the wrong delivery of the express delivery. , citing the relevant provisions on the maximum limit of liability, it was inappropriate to order the appellee to bear limited liability and should be corrected.

1. Revoke the first item of the Civil Judgment No. 59 of Qingdao City, Shandong Province Intermediate People’s Court (2013) Qingmin Sichuzi;

2. Change the Intermediate People’s Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province The second item of the Court's (2013) Qingmin Sichuzi No. 59 Civil Judgment is: The respondent Sinotrans-DHL International Air Express Co., Ltd. Shandong Branch compensated the appellant Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Co., Ltd. Jimo Branch RMB 3164027.63 and interest. .

What do you think of the verdict of this case?

?

For more international shipping and logistics information, follow the Sohang app! "Link"