Claim for compensation concerning the loss of goods in transit 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Claim for compensation concerning the loss of goods in transit
Date
2021-12-23
Hit
419
On August 23, 2020, the Petitioner purchased a men’s business suit (Brian Dales Suits-Wool/price: $110) (“the suit in question”) and a pair of shoes (Atestoni Loafers/price: $65) (“the shoes in question”) from a mail order website run by YOOX Asia Limited (not a relevant party in this case). The Petitioner signed an agreement for the delivery (fee: $9.54) of the suit in question and the shoes in question from New York to Seoul using the mall run by the Respondent. On September 5, 2020, the Petitioner found that the trousers were missing from the goods delivered and raised the issue with the Respondent, but the Respondent said that it could not compensate or refund the loss, as it had no knowledge of whether the trousers were included in the suit in question, as the Petitioner did not register an image of the goods with it at the time of signing the agreement.
A. The Petitioner(Consumer)
The Petitioner contends that because “jacket” refers to the upper part of suits, it is fair to regard “suits” as a term that refers inclusively to a jacket and a set of trousers. The Petitioner also contends that because most pictures feature models wearing full set of suits, it is difficult to distinguish by image whether the item on sale is a jacket or trousers; thus, the Respondent is shifting responsibility on grounds that the Petitioner did not provide images of the item. Accordingly, the Petitioner requests compensation for the purchase price of the suits for the Respondent’s negligence of the duty to inspect.
B. The Respondent(Service Provider)
The Respondent asks for detailed information of shipping items, such as images, upon delivery requests and notifies in advance that it is not responsible for accidents caused by insufficient information of items. Therefore, the Respondent denies liability for inspection of suits without trousers because the petitioner failed to provide images of the shipping item. The Respondent also asserts that the name of the item, “Suits,” alone cannot guarantee the accuracy of inspection since tops and bottoms are often delivered separately, as may be the cases with swimsuits or surf suits. The Respondent replied that it conducted inspection with naked eye based on information such as ‘Name: Brian Dales Suits,’ ‘Quantity: 1,’ ‘Color: Cocoa,’ and ‘Size: 48.’
The court examined the case in order to pass a fair judgment. The Petitioner and the Respondent signed an agreement for the Respondent’s delivery service of the goods from New York to Seoul on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner paid $9.94 for the delivery service. However, part of the goods (business suit) was lost in transit. The relevant terms and conditions of the Respondent state that the Respondent shall make up for any losses occurring in the course of delivery of the goods to the Petitioner’s address, unless it can prove that it did not neglect to pay due attention during the receipt, handover, safekeeping, and transportation of the goods. Therefore, the Respondent should prove that it did not neglect to pay all due attention.
As for the dictionary definition of a “suit”, it refers to a set of outer clothes of the same fabric typically consisting of a jacket and a pair of trousers. This means that the value of the suit is reduced considerably without the accompanying trousers. Common sense suggests that the personnel of the Respondent responsible for inspecting the goods in question should have ascertained whether trousers were actually included in the suit.
However, it is recognized that the Respondent would have no choice but to inspect the goods with the naked eye based on the information provided [i.e. description (Brian Dales Suits), quantity (one), color (cocoa), and size (48)], as there was no image or such like with which to check the goods in detail. Where a service user fails to upload detailed information such as an image of the goods at the time of reaching an agreement on the delivery service, it is highly likely that the Respondent will be unable to inspect the goods accurately, even if it does not neglect to pay attention.
In this regard, the Respondent should refund the amount (price) stated in the service application, the service fee, and the customs duty and surtax in the event of damage to or loss of the goods. However, the Respondent’s sales policy states that it will not provide a refund in an exceptional case in which detailed information (image of the goods, etc.) is not provided in the application for the delivery service. Thus, it is judged that it is not reasonable to ask the Respondent to assume full responsibility for the inaccurate inspection due to the absence of an image of the goods.
Accordingly, the court finds it reasonable to recognize only half the Respondent’s responsibility for the loss of the trousers and to require the Respondent to pay half the price of the suit in question [$55 = 65,247 won at the current exchange rate (i.e. $1=1,186.30 won) as of August 21, 2020].
1. The Respondent shall pay a sum of 65,247 won to the Petitioner by September 30, 2021.
2. If the Respondent fails to pay the sum stated in the foregoing 1 in time, it shall pay a delay penalty equal to 6% per annum per each day of delay concerning the said sum until its full payment, in addition to the principal amount.
