Pay for storage services will be obliged after the end of the contract

3 October 2018, Wednesday

The customer signed a contract under the Law № 44-FZ for the storage of his property, but did not take things on time. The contractor calculated the cost of the day of storage and through the court demanded to pay the time in excess of the terms of the contract. The parties did not enter into an additional agreement, and the counterparty did not terminate the contract unilaterally. Nevertheless, the arbitral Tribunal sided with the executor. The judge explained that storage services are paid at the end. The moment of obligations - the date when signed the act of acceptance. The contractor is obliged to keep things all the time, which is prescribed in the contract. This is stated in paragraph 1 of article 896 of the civil code.

If the parties do not provide for the period of storage or it can not be determined from the terms of the contract, the contractor is obliged to store things until the moment when the customer takes them. This condition contains article 889 of the civil code. The customer is obliged to take his property in time, which is provided in the contract. The end of the storage period activates the obligation of the customer to take the thing back, but does not terminate the right of the custodian to receive a service fee. If the customer has not taken his property, he is obliged to pay the contractor a commensurate fee for further storage. The conclusion follows from paragraph 4 of article 896 of the civil code. The parties did not prescribe in the contract the obligation of the contractor to store the property of the customer free of charge, if the institution does not take it in time. Therefore, the customer is obliged to pay for the storage period, which is not provided in the contract.

The customer appealed the decision, but lost. It went to the Supreme court. The Supreme judicial body explained that the counterparty acted in good faith and could not terminate the contract unilaterally, as he was responsible for the safety of the property. The arbitration decision was upheld.

Document: Supreme court ruling from 20.09.2018 No. 308-ЭС18-13565

SUBSCRIBE FOR NEWS
All content on this site is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International