Ipod Became NICK Sneakers. Who Moved My Parcel?

Spent more than 20 yuan to buy four boxes of iPod NANO2GB audio-visual device, who knows the goods sent to the British company, not only less than a box, and a box into NICK shoes!

More let the owner lose his indignation is that his parcel delivery express has three express companies "handle", such layers of pformation, how can the parcel safely?

Xiao Hu, who had promised himself to "buy on behalf of the carrier" miss Ouyang, told the court to compensate the goods for 103000 yuan and return the freight for 1000 yuan.

Recently, the people's Court of Lujiazui, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, made a first instance judgment on the case. Miss Ouyang, the defendant, compensated the loss of the plaintiff Xiao Hu parcel lost by 10000 yuan.

Xiao Hu's other litigation claims are not supported.

According to Xiao Hu, in the summer of 2006, he contacted miss Ouyang on the Internet, agreed to order iPodNANO2GB audiovisual device to miss Ouyang, and carefully Xiao Hu himself and his father went to see Miss Ouyang's residence. "At that time, she introduced to us that she often helped clients in home and abroad to buy on behalf of the pport, and showed us more than 10 consignments of British and American customers."

When it comes to specific operations, miss Ouyang explains that the customer first remittance, its purchase helps to check, if the defective cargo, it assumes compensation.

With such a guarantee, Xiao Hu bought 200 iPod NANO2GB audiovisual devices to the other side, and paid second yuan on the second day of signing the contract and 20 yuan of postal and courier charges.

Two days later, Hu Fu and miss Ouyang jointly shipped the goods to the consignment Office introduced by Miss Ouyang and checked it to the British company designated by Xiao Hu, and miss Ouyang filled out four bills of lading on behalf of them.

In August, Xiao Hu received an urgent telegram from England. He learned that not only one box was missing, but one of them had been replaced by NIKE shoes.

Xiao Hu immediately contacted miss Ouyang to inquire about the express delivery situation, but miss Ouyang ignored it.

Xiao Hu later found that his parcel had gone through "several passes". Three courier companies had handled the case and sent miss Ouyang to court for compensation.

Miss Ouyang argued in court that she signed a contract with Xiao Hu and agreed that the delivery should be made at miss Ouyang.

Although it is stated in the contract that "the supplier arranges the designated place for the forwarding agent to represent the relevant ticket procedures", because the two parties did not specify the place of delivery at that time, the so-called "designated place of demand" was the residence of miss Ouyang.

Even if Xiao Hu commissioned her to handle the consignment, in the course of actual operation, Xiao Hu did not tell her the place of delivery, but rather handled it by her own father. Xiao Hu withdrew her entrustment with her own behavior.

Now the goods have been delivered to the qualified courier company confirmed by Xiao Hu and finally shipped by China Post, and Xiao Hu has also received the China Post's shipping documents. Therefore, miss Ouyang believes that her fiduciary duty has been completed and should not be compensated.

In the trial, the court found that Xiao Hu's parcel was first received by a courier company, then pferred to a cosmetics company, then sent to the post office, and finally to the United Kingdom.

After Xiao Hu's alarm was lost, the first courier of the first express company stated in the criminal investigation team, "I once knew a young woman named Ouyang who brought a client to my company. Ouyang said that the shipment was sent to the United Kingdom, a total of two hundred MP, and I packed it in four boxes. At that time, because I saw the service address was in English, Ouyang was asked to fill in the EMS express list."

After the trial, the court concluded that the contract signed between Xiao Hu and miss Ouyang established two legal relations, one is the contract for the sale and purchase of goods, and the other is the entrusted contractual relationship for the consignment procedure.

As the trustee, miss Ouyang, the defendant, should personally handle the contractual obligations of the consignment process, and not because he or she is relieved or relieved together. The defendant should still complete the entrusted affairs with reasonable attention and fulfill the duty of care of the good manager.

In view of the fact that the plaintiff was personally involved in the processing of the consignment procedure and did not raise any objection to the courier company recommended by the defendant before the incident, the result of the improper selection of the courier company should be jointly borne by the defendant and the defendant, and the defendant's specific amount should be determined by the court.

However, the court also pointed out that because of the "parcel packet" mentioned by Xiao Hu, because the photos provided by it did not conform to the formal requirements of the evidence, the court did not support the "parcel" loss of parcel post.

As for freight rates, the court will not support the contract of carriage between the original and the defendant.