Estimated reading time (in minutes)
Parcel delivery services, such as CHRONOPOST, are often faced with disputes regarding late deliveries or lost parcels. Customers who choose expedited services and pay a higher amount expect their packages or envelopes to arrive at their destination within a specified time. However, in practice, packages often arrive after the scheduled delivery time. CHRONOPOST includes in its general conditions a limitation of liability clause which limits the compensation of the customer in the event of late delivery due to its fault. This article discusses the indemnification constraints imposed by the limitation of liability clause and highlights the protection of these clauses by the case law.
Limitation of liability clause
CHRONOPOST’s general terms and conditions contain a limitation of liability clause, in particular in article 7.2. According to this clause, if CHRONOPOST is responsible for a delay in delivery, it undertakes to pay compensation not exceeding the price of transport, excluding duties, taxes and other miscellaneous costs. This limitation of liability is in accordance with article 22.3 of the standard contract mentioned in decree no. 99-269 of April 6, 1999 . In essence, this means that customers can only be compensated for the cost of shipping, usually around twenty euros. , even if the package contains valuables.
Remuneration constraints and case law
The limitation of liability imposed by the CHRONOPOST clause has broader implications beyond packages containing valuables. Customers using CHRONOPOST for urgent shipments cannot be compensated for lost opportunities resulting from late deliveries, such as missed contract opportunities, exam registrations, or job applications. Compensation constraints can have a significant impact on customers who rely on fast delivery for critical issues.
Despite the seemingly insignificant compensation, case law has always confirmed the durability of such limitation of liability clauses. The courts have recognized and protected the validity of these clauses, affirming their enforceability. Accordingly, customers must navigate within the limits of compensation limits established in the terms and conditions of parcel delivery services like CHRONOPOST.
Conclusion:
Parcel delivery services, including CHRONOPOST, often include limitation of liability clauses in their general conditions, limiting the compensation offered to customers in the event of delay in delivery due to their own fault. CHRONOPOST’s limitation of liability clause allows customers to be compensated only for the cost of shipping, regardless of the value or potential opportunities lost due to delivery delays. Case law has always recognized and protected these limitation of liability clauses, thus limiting the compensation offered to customers. Understanding and accepting these constraints is crucial for customers using parcel delivery services as they manage the potential risks and limitations associated with late deliveries and lost parcels.
