I had a parcel shipped with a company (not courier itself). Delivery took over 10 days instead of 2 days. During the order below message was displayed.

Parcel delivery within 2 working days throughout. Collection and delivery are not guaranteed but currently enjoy a very high success rate.

Is this legal for them to simply say they can provide the service or not without any responsibility? What's to stop them from simply taking the payment and then simply doing nothing since it's not guaranteed? It seems like gambling to me since it's pure chance that your parcel will even get delivered at all let alone within specified time frame. They also take no responsibility for lost packages regardless of the cause.

This is within the EU so any EU law would apply.


You pay for an attempt to deliver. Not trying to deliver would be breach of contract. They promise a very high success rate. Having a low success rate would be misleading customers. So they MUST try to deliver and have a high success rate. Just not 100%.

Regarding comments: It says quite clearly that collection and delivery are not guaranteed. You can't just read the bits you like and ignore the bits you don't like.

| improve this answer | |
  • Isn't saying delivery within x and then delivery not guaranteed contradictory? It sounds quite certain that delivery will take within x days. – DominicM Aug 30 '18 at 8:40
  • @dominicM no - this says to me they have designed the network to provide a certain level of performance - which is not the same thing as guaranteeing that performance in every case. A crude analogy might be a store promising a low price for an item does not imply the store will never run out of stock (but there is an obligation on them to have reasonable quantities of stock) – davidgo Aug 30 '18 at 11:05
  • @davidgo Doesn't seem like that analogy works. Service is paid in advance not to mention the company holds your property. I mean if you buy an item and then they run out of stock or can't deliver in a reasonable amount of time I would expect a refund. This is even before considering the possibility of loss of the property being shipped. – DominicM Aug 31 '18 at 12:35
  • @DominicM - I think you are missing the point of the analogy. The analogy is to show that there are 2 related but seperate elements in each case - although they are related, a promise on one is not a promise on both, and in your quote they explicitly excluded the timeframe as a promise by saying its not guaranteed - there is nothing illegal about this. – davidgo Aug 31 '18 at 21:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.