200 points for urgent 2 contracts of carriage case and to explain the difference between the 2 contr

One go! Actually, a lot.

Answer]: a, b, c, d

The carrier shall be liable for damages for the damage or loss of the goods during the transportation, but if the carrier proves that the damage or loss of the goods is caused by force majeure, the natural nature of the goods themselves or reasonable wear and tear, and the fault of the shipper or consignee, the carrier shall not be liable for damages, and options b and c are correct; The buyer should be liable for damage and loss caused by the fault of the consignee.

1. According to the contract law, Company B shall compensate for the disturbance of pure bends; 2. According to the Labor Contract Law and the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, Zhang's injury is a work-related injury, and Company B is responsible for it; 3. It can be claimed, but it is not necessary. The maximum limit is regulated by the Contract Law. 4. It can be asserted, but the court will not support it depending on the specific circumstances.

5. Company C shall bear its own responsibility, but it can pursue the liability for breach of contract of supply from A and C according to the contract between Party A and Party C. 6. Report to the public security organ to recover the goods, apply for compensation from the insurance company and the work-related injury, and provide evidence to Party A to reduce the responsibility for the cause of the accident. 7. No, for the reasons you mentioned.

1. Personally, I think that the judge's statement cannot be established, the behavior of the plaintiff and the defendant should belong to the transaction practice, although it is not written into the contract, but it is still legally binding on both parties, and the defendant should have the obligation of prudent delivery when delivering the goods, that is, to transport the goods to the designated place and collect the payment, and the defendant in this case did not fulfill the duty of care, and should at least bear the main responsibility.

2. The relationship between the original defendants in this case is not that of criminal first and then civil, and that of the defendant and the fraudster is of criminal first and then civil.

The defendant has no legal obligation to bring back the payment, but the original defendant is now a contract of carriage, and the carrier (defendant) has the obligation to safely deliver the goods to the consignee designated by the shipper (plaintiff) (with a valid receipt certificate of the consignee), otherwise the responsibility lies with the defendant for the loss or theft of the goods, and now the defendant has no evidence to prove that the goods were delivered to the person designated by the plaintiff, and the defendant has violated the provisions of the contract of carriage, and the losses caused must be compensated. It has nothing to do with whether the fraud case is solved or not.

For the first time in more than 30 years of my experience in transportation, I have encountered what you are talking about. However, there are still many strange places and links in this case of defrauded goods, first of all, the owner of this vehicle does not know whether it is the owner you absolutely trust; whether the facts in the process of handing over the goods are true and credible; The end result: both you and the car owner fall for the scam at the same time, and the whole process is unbelievable.

To be honest, in today's logistics, or freight process, most of the operation process is to transport and collect payment separately. If you let the carrier accept the transportation and the collection of payment at the same time, not only does it increase the risk of the carrier, but your own business risk is not only not avoided, but it puts its risk in a situation that no one can afford to bear, as evidenced by this case.

Suppose that we are now operating according to the normal mode of operation, when you have a buyer, the negotiation has been completed, the settlement method has been determined, send someone to the place of delivery in advance, wait until the goods arrive, pay the money with one hand, and deliver the goods with the other, then there is this case? Or your payee is traveling with the car, and it is also one hand to pay the money and the other hand to deliver, and there is no case in this case. The vehicle owner only bears the responsibility for transportation.

However, the carrier is still inescapable of being held liable for the consequences of the deception, so it should also be liable for compensation. Personally, I think that if the value of this case is high, you should personally go to the site to investigate the situation of being deceived, first, it can further confirm the authenticity and reliability of the car owner; Second, clues and evidence can be found for solving the case as soon as possible.

If you don't do anything now and want to wait for a response, you can only make progress after the lawsuit you said has reached such a point, and you can only make progress after the fraudsters are apprehended.

Legal analysis: According to the contract, which party breaches the contract and which party needs to bear certain responsibilities and losses.

Legal Sideline Basis:

Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 119:Contracts established in accordance with law are legally binding on the parties.

Article 585:The parties may agree that when one party breaches the contract, it shall pay a certain amount of liquidated damages to the other party according to the circumstances of the breach, and may also agree on the method of calculating the amount of compensation for losses arising from the breach.

If the agreed liquidated damages are lower than the losses caused, the parties may request the people's court or arbitration institution to increase them; If the agreed liquidated damages are excessively higher than the losses caused, the parties may request the People's Bridge Judgment Court or arbitration institution to appropriately reduce the damages.