试论快递服务合同保价条款

保价条款不仅是违约责任条款,而且从缔约目的和实际功能来看还具有担保性,后者表现为保价约定既通过事先特殊防范措施保障用户债权的实现,又通过对限赔条款的排除适用使用户方能够获得更为充分的救济,尤其是其对不可抗力这一法定免责事由的排斥,更表现出其优越于一般担保措施的超强担保力。正是这一性质使保价条款成为快递服务合同的从合同,而从合同在成立判断上的独立性决定了该条款是否成立应依独立合同的成立标准来判断。保价条款的成立既包括通常合同之一般要件,又包括反映其个性特征的某些特殊要件,即前者要求当事人应对保价之必要条款协商一致,并对是否保价做出肯定性勾选;后者要求快递企业依法对保价条款履行了提示义务,且寄件人在缔约时依约支付了保价费。在对保价条款进行效力评判时,应明确评价对象仅限于特定条款范围,属于快递企业自主经营权并作为双方缔约前提的事项,并非保价条款的效力评价对象。对于保价条款中的低保低赔约定,可以根据故意、重大过失造成财产损失的免责条款无效之法律规定否定其效力,但不应适用《中华人民共和国合同法》中有关格式条款的效力规范判定其无效,也不应依据该法中的显失公平规定对其予以撤销。

On Value Insured Clause of Express Service Contract

Value insured clause is not only concerning responsibility for the breach of contract,it also has the nature of guarantee,which is demonstrated insured agreement as ex ante special prevention measures that can be used to guarantee the realization of creditor’s right,and the exclusion of limited compensation clause that can be used as the sufficient protection for users.In particular,its exclusion of force majeure,which is a legal exemption,shows its superior guarantee power over general guarantee measures.This nature can make value insured clause become the subordinate contract of express service contract;and the independence of the subordinate contract determines that if this clause can be held should depend on the tenable standard of the independent contract.The establishment of value insured clause includes not only the normal important document of general contract,but also some special important document that can reflect its individual characteristics.That is to say,the former requires the parties to reach a consensus on the necessary terms and make a decision on whether to insure the value.The latter requires the express enterprise to fulfill the obligation of reminding the value insured clause by law,and the senders pay the fee according to the contract.When judging the effectiveness of this clause,we should clarify that the evaluation object should be limited within certain clause,and it is express enterprises’own operation right and the precondition of the contract,but not the effectiveness evaluation object of the value insured clause.As for the agreement of low insurance and low compensation,it is invalid according to the invalid exemption clause of property loss caused by deliberate intent or gross negligence.But it is unreasonable to invalidate it according to invalid standard terms in Contract Law of People’s Republic of China or revoke it because of the provision of obvious unfairness.