Parcel 2 Go dot com

[des8]

Re: Parcel 2 Go dot com

That was my central point though - their duty of care. If I walk into a shop and through their negligence they smash up some of my stuff, I have the absolute right to claim against them in Court and they'd have to pay, regardless whether they could claim that back off their insurance or not. The fact that they can, or cannot, recover those costs through insurance is completely irrelevant - the old "they break, they pay" scenario.

Why aren't goods despatchers held to the same basic standard? Why do their costs even enter into the discussion?

In English Law there exists a duty of care imposed by contract. This is different to the duty of care imposed by common Law.
Contractual Duty of Care is a legal liability that can be limited or amended by statute
In this case UTCA1977 allows for that liability to be limited.

To be fair to the carriers I have ever dealt with, they make it clear that they limit their liability to a small amount.
This s because most of the goods they carry are small value items.
If you want to increase the compensation available for your higher value goods the option is available.
If they were to offer unlimited compensation to everyone, a) their prices would increase to reflect their higher costs b) the volume of goods moved would reduce as people would not send low value items at higher cost.
I think the current position is as fair as we will get

On the practical side, if anybody in this situation tried to sue, IMO they would also have a difficulty proving negligence. The fact that a goods arrive damaged does not automatically prove negligence on the part of the carrier.