On 2025-05-29, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In other words, should damages correspond with the level of cover
taken out, or (aside from the specific list of prohibited item types clearly highlighted during booking) can the T&C bar items of higher
value from any compensation?
I guess the T&Cs probably could say that. Do they?
An individual sends a package worth £100 using a delivery service. The delivery service offers protection up to £50. The package doesn't arrive. Should the sender receive compensation of:
1) £50, since that's the limit of the cover offered by the delivery service
2) £0, on the grounds that:
a) they broke the terms and conditions by sending something above the limit
b) the item was 'too valuable' and so the risk of theft was increased
Let's assume the item was not on the courier's restricted/no-protection list (musical instruments, currency, etc) and was not showing its value
externally (plain brown box, not a box displaying the product inside).
In other words, should damages correspond with the level of cover taken out, or (aside from the specific list of prohibited item types clearly
highlighted during booking) can the T&C bar items of higher value from any compensation?
Theo
An individual sends a package worth £100 using a delivery service. The delivery service offers protection up to £50. The package doesn't arrive. Should the sender receive compensation of:
1) £50, since that's the limit of the cover offered by the delivery service
2) £0, on the grounds that:
a) they broke the terms and conditions by sending something above the limit
b) the item was 'too valuable' and so the risk of theft was increased
Let's assume the item was not on the courier's restricted/no-protection list (musical instruments, currency, etc) and was not showing its value
externally (plain brown box, not a box displaying the product inside).
In other words, should damages correspond with the level of cover
taken out, or (aside from the specific list of prohibited item types
clearly highlighted during booking) can the T&C bar items of higher
value from any compensation?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-29, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In other words, should damages correspond with the level of cover
taken out, or (aside from the specific list of prohibited item types
clearly highlighted during booking) can the T&C bar items of higher
value from any compensation?
I guess the T&Cs probably could say that. Do they?
I don't have any specific service in mind. So the question is really
whether a company's T&C can enforceably declare their liability to be zero, rather than proportionate.
I suppose the 'no compensation items' list is an example of that, but that's something explicitly declared upfront. I've not see a T&C saying 'if the item is worth more than X it isn't covered at all' upfront.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-29, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
In other words, should damages correspond with the level of cover
taken out, or (aside from the specific list of prohibited item types >>>clearly highlighted during booking) can the T&C bar items of higher
value from any compensation?
I guess the T&Cs probably could say that. Do they?
I don't have any specific service in mind. So the question is really
whether a company's T&C can enforceably declare their liability to be zero, >rather than proportionate.
I suppose the 'no compensation items' list is an example of that, but
that's
something explicitly declared upfront. I've not see a T&C saying 'if the >item is worth more than X it isn't covered at all' upfront.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't have any specific service in mind. So the question is really
whether a company's T&C can enforceably declare their liability to be
zero, rather than proportionate.
On 29 May 2025 10:54:50 +0100 (BST), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
An individual sends a package worth £100 using a delivery service. The
delivery service offers protection up to £50. The package doesn't arrive. >> Should the sender receive compensation of:
1) £50, since that's the limit of the cover offered by the delivery service >>
2) £0, on the grounds that:
a) they broke the terms and conditions by sending something above the limit >> b) the item was 'too valuable' and so the risk of theft was increased
Let's assume the item was not on the courier's restricted/no-protection list >> (musical instruments, currency, etc) and was not showing its value
externally (plain brown box, not a box displaying the product inside).
In other words, should damages correspond with the level of cover taken out, >> or (aside from the specific list of prohibited item types clearly
highlighted during booking) can the T&C bar items of higher value from any >> compensation?
Possibly £25 [1] if they adopted the principle that applies in home insurance where, if you understate the value of your home/contents,
any particular claim is reduced pro-rata.
[1]If applied to the value of the claim rather than the value of the
goods.
Indeed. I think in a consumer contract then charging money for a
delivery service and saying in the small print that you don't actually guarantee that the item will arrive or indeed ever be seen again and
that no compensation will be paid would be an unfair contract term.
On the other hand, saying that items over £X will not be guaranteed
is more reasonable. As you say, this could be treated as meaning either
that the maximum liability is £X, or that if the item is worth over £X
then there is no liability. I could see that going either way depending
on the wording of the terms, but if they didn't specify I would expect
it to be liability of £X.
A B2B contract could of course be different. A business might make the decision that they're sending thousands of low-value items, and if it
turns out that not enough of them are arriving at their destination
then their remedy is to simply switch couriers rather than try and get
money back from the existing courier.
Finally there is also the point that you are talking about a regulated industry under the Postal Services Act 2011. It may be that there are regulations under this which override basic contract law.
An individual sends a package worth £100 using a delivery service. The >delivery service offers protection up to £50. The package doesn't arrive. >Should the sender receive compensation of:
1) £50, since that's the limit of the cover offered by the delivery service
2) £0, on the grounds that:
a) they broke the terms and conditions by sending something above the limit b) the item was 'too valuable' and so the risk of theft was increased
Let's assume the item was not on the courier's restricted/no-protection list >(musical instruments, currency, etc) and was not showing its value
externally (plain brown box, not a box displaying the product inside).
In other words, should damages correspond with the level of cover taken out, >or (aside from the specific list of prohibited item types clearly
highlighted during booking) can the T&C bar items of higher value from any >compensation?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Indeed. I think in a consumer contract then charging money for a
delivery service and saying in the small print that you don't actually
guarantee that the item will arrive or indeed ever be seen again and
that no compensation will be paid would be an unfair contract term.
On the other hand, saying that items over £X will not be guaranteed
is more reasonable. As you say, this could be treated as meaning either
that the maximum liability is £X, or that if the item is worth over £X
then there is no liability. I could see that going either way depending
on the wording of the terms, but if they didn't specify I would expect
it to be liability of £X.
I think the 'no compensation' list is more about damage or replaceability.
If I send a ming vase, there's a good chance it gets smashed - it's just a delicate object and they can't guarantee the depot won't throw it around, so it could break no matter how carefully it's packed. Secondly, if they do break it I can't just order another one.
But in terms of financial losses, a package that goes missing is a loss to me. So it's similar to saying 'we'll attempt to do X, but we'll keep your money if we don't'. Which is starting to feel like unfair terms territory.
(of course, refunding the £5 postage fee not the £50 loss is not a fair result here either)
A B2B contract could of course be different. A business might make the
decision that they're sending thousands of low-value items, and if it
turns out that not enough of them are arriving at their destination
then their remedy is to simply switch couriers rather than try and get
money back from the existing courier.
Perhaps, although I would expect the contract to say something different other than 'item is covered up to £50'. This game of probabilities should be made clear in the contract.
Finally there is also the point that you are talking about a regulated
industry under the Postal Services Act 2011. It may be that there are
regulations under this which override basic contract law.
Does that apply to couriers, or just the Royal Mail / Parcelforce?
On 2025-05-29, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
But in terms of financial losses, a package that goes missing is a loss to me. So it's similar to saying 'we'll attempt to do X, but we'll keep your money if we don't'. Which is starting to feel like unfair terms territory.
I addressed that above? Possibly I'm not sure what you're getting at
here. Clearly you can't sue for £53.1 million if you send a priceless
Ming vase using a £20 parcel service.
Couriers too. DHL v Ofcom [2016] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/938.html#para82
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:34:02 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,398 |