未保价快件限额赔偿格式条款效力之体裁检视

格式条款的效力问题一直是未保价快递赔偿纠纷中的焦点之一，我国学界对未保价快递格式条款已有实证研究成果，但是大部分实证研究缺乏系统性和综合性。文章基于自建的未保价快递案例数据库，以体裁分析为理论框架，对裁判文书进行了统计和分析，发现在认定未保价快递限额赔偿条款的效力时，法官在法律适用的逻辑上存在冲突，且在法条文本特定概念的解释方面存在争议；除适用法条之外，法官还适用事实推定规则来判定格式条款的效力，且在《中华人民共和国合同法》第39条是否为认定格式条款效力的必选语步方面存在分歧。基于上述发现，文章针对性地对各个问题进行了分析和阐释，并提出了相应的立法建议和实务解决路径，以期为完善快递立法、防止法官自由裁量权的滥用以及加强裁判文书说理的逻辑性和严密性提供参考价值。

A Genre Exploration on the Validity of Standard Terms of Limited Compensation in Uninsured Express Mails

The validity of standard terms has always been one focus of the disputes related to uninsured express mails. Although some empirical results have been achieved, most studies are in lack of systematicness and comprehensiveness. Based on the specially created uninsured express mails cases database, with genre analysis as the theoretical framework, after the statistics and anlysis of the court judgments related to uninsured express mails cases, it is found that disagreements exist in terms of the logic of judges’law application and the interpretation of some legal concepts. Besides law application, the judges also apply the presumptions of fact to decide the validity of standard terms, which results in a divergence in whether “the obligation of giving a reasonable alert and explanation” prescribed in the Article 39 of Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China is an obligatory move to decide the validity of standard terms. Based on the findings above, the targeted analysis and illustration is undertaken to deal with each specific issue about uninsured express mails with cooresponding legislative suggestions and pratical solutions provided so as to provide some insights into improving the legislation about express mails, preventing the abuse of judges’discretion and enhancing the logic of reasoning of court judgments.