Case Introduction

On October 13, 2021, a certain stone business department contacted Wang, the vehicle driver of the Lu CXXXXX truck, through WeChat and entrusted Wang to transport stones worth 16340 yuan from Yuncheng to a construction site in Zhoucun. Hou Wang sent the above loading list and weighing list to the stone business operator Li through WeChat, and Li also sent the delivery destination, recipient, and their contact information to Wang. After Wang delivered the stone to the designated location, Li did not recognize the weighing list held by Wang. Both parties did not weigh it again, and the stone business department did not pay the shipping fee to Wang as agreed. Wang then detained the stone involved in the case. After multiple unsuccessful attempts at coordination by relevant departments, on December 28, 2022, a certain stone business department repurchased stones to supply the construction site and paid a compensation of 3210 yuan for delayed delivery. The plaintiff, Li, the operator of a certain stone business department, filed a lawsuit against Wang and his truck, Lu CXXXXX, belonging to Zibo Transportation Co., Ltd., in court, demanding compensation of 16340 yuan for the stone and 3210 yuan for delayed compensation, totaling 19550 yuan.

Court Trial

After examination, the court found that a transportation contract is a contract in which the carrier transports passengers or goods from the point of origin to the agreed location, and the passenger, consignor or consignee pays the fare or transportation fees. Although the plaintiff and defendant Wang did not sign a written contract for the transportation of goods, they reached an agreement through WeChat on October 13, 2021, which is a true expression of their intentions and does not violate mandatory provisions of laws and regulations. Therefore, the contract for the transportation of goods reached between the plaintiff and defendant Wang is legally valid and binding on both parties. The defendant Wang purchased all vehicles of a transportation limited liability company in Zibo and registered them under the company's name for operation, forming a affiliation relationship between the two parties.

According to Article 836 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, if the shipper or consignee fails to pay the freight, storage fees, and other fees, the carrier has a right of retention on the corresponding transported goods, except as otherwise agreed by the parties. In this case, if there is a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant over the weight of the stone, they should weigh it again, eliminate the dispute, and settle the shipping fee based on the facts. But the two parties failed to coordinate and handle it, resulting in the plaintiff not paying the freight, and the defendant Wang detained the transported goods. The plaintiff claims that if the defendant Wang refuses to weigh the stone again without providing evidence, the defendant Wang has a lien on the corresponding transported stone without receiving the freight. If the exercise of the right of retention results in delayed delivery of goods, it does not constitute a legal termination of the contract. Therefore, the plaintiff's request for termination of the contract is unfounded by law, and this court does not support it.

In summary, both parties shall fulfill their respective obligations in accordance with the provisions of the transportation contract, that is, the plaintiff, as the consignor, shall pay the freight to the defendant Wang as agreed, and the defendant Wang, as the carrier, shall deliver the goods specified in the shipment list to the destination and deliver them to the plaintiff as agreed. Defendant Wang, as the holder of the right of retention, also has the obligation to properly keep the detained property. If the detained property is damaged or lost due to poor storage, he shall be liable for compensation. The plaintiff requested that the defendant Wang compensate the construction site for a fine of 3210 yuan, but did not provide evidence to prove that the loss had actually occurred. This court does not support it. The plaintiff may make a separate claim after providing evidence. Finally, the court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit against a certain stone business department in accordance with the law. If neither party appeals, the first instance shall take effect.

The judge's statement

The right of retention belongs to the legal security right. In a transportation contract, when the shipper or consignee does not pay the freight, the carrier may have a right of retention on the corresponding transported goods. However, attention should be paid to the degree of application of the right of retention, while protecting its own rights and interests, and avoiding the risk of using the right of retention.

Firstly, if it is explicitly agreed by law or mutual agreement to exclude the right of retention, the creditor shall not exercise the right of retention, and the actual losses incurred in such circumstances shall be borne by the carrier. Secondly, the exercise of a lien requires the following conditions: 1. The subject matter of the lien is movable property. The occurrence of a right of retention must be based on a certain contractual relationship. Such as transportation contracts, storage contracts, processing contracts, contracting contracts, etc. 3. The lien holder must have a claim. The establishment of a lien must be based on the creditor's rights arising from the subject matter of the lien, such as processing fees, storage fees, and transportation fees. 4. The occurrence of creditor's rights is related to the detained movable property, that is, the detained movable property and creditor's rights belong to the same legal relationship. 5. The debt has reached its repayment period. Thirdly, the carrier should pay attention to the limitations when exercising the right of retention. If the transported goods are separable, the value of the retained goods should include unpaid freight, storage fees, or other transportation costs plus possible litigation costs, and excessive goods cannot be retained; If the transported goods are indivisible, the carrier may retain all the goods, even if the carrier has obtained most of the freight, storage fees, and other transportation costs.

In this case, there is a transportation contract dispute between the plaintiff and defendant, with Wang as the carrier and the goods being stone. Although the two parties did not sign a written transportation contract, they reached an agreement through WeChat, which is a true expression of their intentions and does not violate mandatory provisions of laws and regulations. Therefore, the goods transportation contract reached between the plaintiff and defendant Wang is legal, valid, and binding on both parties. Li, as the shipper, did not recognize the weighing bill held by Wang and neither party reweighed it, and did not pay the freight to carrier Wang. Wang had a legal claim due to unpaid freight, and the occurrence of the claim was related to the detained stone. As it was agreed to pay the freight to the designated location, it should be presumed that the debt had been settled. Therefore, Wang has a right of retention on the transported stone in accordance with the law in this transportation contract. After a dispute arose, the delayed delivery of the transported stones resulted in a breach of the sales contract signed between Li's stone business department and the buyer, resulting in a fine. Li filed a lawsuit to terminate the transportation contract with Wang and demand compensation for losses. In this case, the exercise of the right of retention is a reasonable way for the carrier to claim the rightful freight. Although the breach of the sales contract was caused by the detention of the goods, the legal relationship between Li's breach of the sales contract and the exercise of the right of retention due to the unpaid freight in the transportation contract is different. The breach of the sales contract cannot naturally lead to the termination of the transportation contract, and it does not comply with the statutory grounds for termination of the contract in Article 563 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, the exercise of the right of retention leads to the delayed delivery of the goods. The contract should be terminated without the need to compensate for any losses caused by breach of contract, Li should promptly settle Wang's transportation costs.

This article is transferred from the official account "Shandong Gaofa", and thanks.