January 2001

It you want to avoid claims for damage during deliveries, try not to cause it in the first place. That's the realistic advice of legal correspondent Owen Keane, who adds that rigorous procedures can also help

There are some recurring problems which every fulfilment or delivery company will know. It's bad enough when consignments bear the wrong address, or can't be delivered for some other reason. When goods are damaged on delivery, the situation is potentially worse, since in this case unlike the others, there will always be a consequential cost ­ not to mention the inevitable difficulties and disputes, which will ultimately focus on who will pay for them.

Whilst the contracts between consignor, delivery agent and any sub-agents will include clauses assigning responsibility for ensuring that the goods are not damaged in transit, it is natural that most, if not all, disputes will surface either at the time of delivery, or some time afterwards.

Items which are damaged without obvious external indication (the classic "drop" instance) present the greatest challenge when it comes to apportioning blame. More often than not, there will be no conclusive way of determining when the damage occurred. In such circumstances, who should bear the responsibility and costs of this damage?

The costs (and losses) go beyond the simple costs of replacement, which may be insured. Inevitably all the companies involved in a dispute will lose the costs of administering, if not fighting claims. Whilst agreed procedures for these will minimise their cost, the company which ultimately will suffer most is likely to be the original consignor, whose customer will be disappointed. The costs of this are hard to calculate when quality of service is key to success in today's business world.

Key to avoiding disputes will be aligning the interests of the carriers and those of the consignor. At first glance, the considerations are simple for the consignor. At one extreme the customer is obviously of utmost importance, requiring total sympathy and support in any dealing with the consignor and its representatives. At the other, preventing abuse of any returns and compensation policy should also not be overlooked.

The position of the carriers is somewhat more complex. The classic consumer perception is that carriers always try to avoid being blamed, and where there are multiple carriers each always tries to blame the other. Recent high-profile disputes about Christmas orders have done little to dispel this image, so measures to minimise disputes will help all.

It is where the carrier offers a door-to-door service, and so is solely responsible, that the need for a close review of procedures becomes most important, and can offer the biggest potential for avoiding dispute. For operational efficiencies, uniform packing procedures should be implemented ­ and these should include the question of what protective padding and sizes of boxes are to be used. These procedures should also take account of the likely treatment; some handling processes will be less suitable, but not unreasonable, depending on the type of goods and their packaging (clearly PC monitors require different handling from clothes).

Some types of business may require special considerations, and some companies should undertake careful staff training. "Start-up" companies are good examples, as are those which handle a high number of mixed consignments where goods are packed in an ad-hoc manner. Here it is important not to overlook basic issues such as the importance of packing heavy items separately or placing them at the bottom of a stack.

Such simple matters may become important, since any claim for poor service will be based around negligence or breach of contract. The carrier should not be liable for negligence if the parcels are poorly consigned, despite use of proper materials. As some might say, don't judge a parcel by its cover