Courier service stations provide convenience for both courier companies and consumers. But parcels delivered to the stations are seldom accepted by consumers in person. What happens if one finds his or her parcel empty after its retrieval from the station?

Case summary

The plaintiff bought a high-end watch worth 8,888 yuan ($1,241) from an online shop run by defendant A. After receiving the watch, the plaintiff claimed it was defective and mailed it to the manufacturer for checkup after consulting defendant A. The manufacturer checked the watch and concluded there was no quality issue, and sent it back to the plaintiff through defendant B, a courier company. The place of receipt agreed by the plaintiff and the manufacturer was the plaintiff’s home.

When delivering the parcel, defendant B left the parcel at a courier station without notifying the plaintiff. When the plaintiff retrieved the parcel, there was no watch inside, while the invoice of the courier wrote: “Watch inside is already inspected.” The plaintiff informed defendant A that the watch was missing. Defendant A replied that it had completed the shipping and was not liable, and that the loss of goods should be compensated by the courier. The plaintiff then complained to defendant B, who failed to give a satisfactory response. Eventually, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit at the Beijing Internet Court (BIC), requiring defendant A to deliver the watch, and defendants B and C, the online shopping platform, to bear joint liability. 

Main considerations

When engaging in civil activities, civil entities should abide by the principle of good faith, and sellers should deliver the goods at the agreed venue. In this case, defendant A had entrusted the manufacturer to send the goods via defendant B back to the plaintiff at an address agreed to by the plaintiff. The courier invoice wrote "watch inside is already inspected", which shows that the product involved in the case was shipped out by the manufacturer entrusted by defendant A.

Defendant B, as the carrier of the package, was the agent of defendant A, and had the obligation to deliver the goods to the plaintiff in an intact condition per instructions by the shipper. It was required to deliver the package to the agreed receiving address, the recipient or the consignee designated by the recipient, and inform the recipient or the consignee they could accept the package in person, a right the recipient is entitled to. Defendant B deposited the package at the station without permission from the plaintiff. The plaintiff could have refused to retrieve the package and informed defendant A. Retrieving the package does not mean the plaintiff agreed with the way of delivery. The courier company did not deliver the package to the plaintiff in person and have his signature confirming receipt of the package in an intact condition, nor did it deliver the package to the address agreed to by the plaintiff.

Since defendant B was the agent of defendant A, and its failure to deliver the goods to the agreed venue was an act of breach of contract, it follows that defendant A committed a breach of contract and should bear liability to the plaintiff. The law stipulates that if a party fails to perform its agreed contractual obligations or the performance of its contractual obligations is not in conformity with the agreed terms, it shall bear liability for breach of contract and be obliged to continue to perform the obligation, take remedial measures or compensate for losses. In this case, defendant A should continue to deliver the goods in question to the plaintiff, or it should refund the payment.

Defendant B, as the carrier of the delivery, did not have a sales contract relationship with the plaintiff, so the plaintiff had no right to claim liability against defendant B. If a dispute over the contract of carriage occurs after defendant A has performed its obligations to the plaintiff, defendant A can make a separate claim. Defendant C had no fault in this case and should not be held liable. 

Details of the judgment

The BIC ordered defendant A to deliver the goods involved to the plaintiff, and pay any delivery fee that may arise. If defendant A could not deliver the goods, it would need to refund the payment of 8,888 yuan to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's other claims were rejected. The judgment has now taken effect. 

Tips from the judge

In online shopping, courier companies have dual identities, one as the package carrier in the transportation contract where the Party A is the shipper and also the operator of the online shop; and the other as the agent of Party A, shouldering the obligation of delivering the goods to the recipient in an intact condition per the instructions of the shipper. As stipulated in Article 512 of the Civil Code, "Where the object of an electronic contract concluded through internet or other information network is the delivery of goods and the goods are to be delivered by express delivery services, the time of delivery is the time of acknowledging receipt of the goods by the recipient. Where the object of the said electronic contract is the provision of services, the time for provision of the service is the time stated in the automatic generated electronic certificate or physical certificate. Where there is no time stated in such a certificate or the time stated therein is inconsistent with the actual time for provision of the service, the actual time for provision of the service shall prevail." 

By determining the delivery time, the law clarifies that in an online sales contract, the seller's obligation shall continue until the buyer receives the goods. If the seller fails to deliver the subject matter at the agreed place of delivery, as stipulated in Article 603 of the Civil Code, the seller shall be deemed to have breached the online sales contract. The buyer may directly require the seller to bear the liability for breach of contract. The seller may subsequently claim liability for breach of contract against the courier company in respect of its transportation contract, but shall not claim that the buyer shall directly pursue liability against the courier company, so as to avoid the performance of its own liability for breaching the contract with the buyer.

The Ministry of Transportation released the new administration regulations in December 2023. They specify the obligations of courier companies and penalties for violations including the duty of courier companies to fulfill their obligations of in-person delivery, mandate their service obligations, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of service users.