Business Contracts

When the contract for work involves a tangible item, the contractor is also under an obligation to preserve the item handed over by the client in good condition and, consequently, to return it. In the event of deterioration or loss of the item entrusted to him, Articles 1788 and 1789 of the Civil Code determine who is liable for the loss, and the implications in terms of liability. Contractors owe …

Content

When the contract for work involves a tangible item, the contractor is also under an obligation to preserve the item handed over by the client in good condition and, consequently, to return it. In the event of deterioration or loss of the item entrusted to him, Articles 1788 and 1789 of the Civil Code determine who is liable for the loss, and the implications in terms of liability. Contractors owe their clients a duty to provide advice, information and safety, as well as an obligation to safeguard the thing entrusted to them . In accordance with new Article 1197 of the Civil Code, “the obligation to deliver the thing entails the obligation to safeguard it until delivery, with all the care of a reasonable person”.

According to established case law, the existence of a contract for services does not exclude the possibility of the contractor being bound by the obligations of the custodian or depositary , which subsist even after the contract for services has come to an end .  According to the Court of Cassation, a contractor who has received an item on deposit for repair is not released from his obligations as custodian by having completed the work ordered, and remains obliged to keep and preserve the item until it has been returned .

Automobile repair contracts, which bind garage owners to their customers, are a prime example of contracts for services involving ancillary custodial obligations. As this type of consignment is presumed to have been entered into for valuable consideration , there is an abundance of litigation relating to the payment of custodial fees. Thus, according to the courts, the mere fact that a garage is unable to justify having posted a fee scale corresponding to the cost of parking the vehicle deposited under the contract for services does not mean that the vehicle was stored free of charge by the garage holding the vehicle . While the person depositing the vehicle is obliged to reimburse the depositary for any expenses incurred for the preservation of the deposited vehicle, and to compensate the depositary for any losses incurred as a result of the deposit, a garage owner who has deposited a vehicle for several years is not entitled to claim storage costs, when the vehicle has been sold at auction, and it has not been shown that his harm has not been compensated for by the proceeds of the sale . Similarly, a garage owner who has not fulfilled his obligation to preserve the vehicle is not entitled to claim storage costs, since the vehicle in his care has been the subject of a parking ticket for illegally parking it on the public highway .

The item in question must be returned to the depositor as soon as he requests it, regardless of whether the contract stipulates a specific deadline for its return, so that in the absence of a complaint from the depositor, the garage owner cannot be held at fault for having kept the vehicle . 

Where the garage owner issues a formal notice to collect the vehicle deposited under the contract for services and informs the customer of the onerous nature of the storage, he is entitled to demand payment for the storage service from the date of receipt of said demand . However, storage costs do not cover the period during which the vehicle was being repaired .  In the absence of a formal demand, the garage owner is only entitled to seek payment from the date of service of a court judgment involving both parties . 

When a vehicle deposited with a garage under a contract for services is the subject of a leasing agreement, the lessee, who is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the vehicle, must be considered as the depositor during the period of performance of the contract and consequently the garage cannot invoice the owner of the vehicle for storage costs until the lease has expired .

CA Amiens, 20 May 2021, LawLex202200009840JBJ.

CA Paris, 9 January 2017, LawLex202200004540JBJ; CA Bordeaux, 12 May 2022, LawLex202200004519JBJ. However, the existence of a contract for services must be proven, as in the absence of proof, the bailment agreement cannot be presumed to have been entered into for valuable consideration, and the bailee's claim for payment of the costs of safekeeping will succeed, See CA Bordeaux, 6 May 2021, LawLex202200004198JBJ.

CA Pau, 9 July 2024, LawLex202400005331JBJ; CA Toulouse, 17 September 2024, LawLex202400006587JBJ.

CA Aix-en-Provence, 14 November 2017, LawLex202200004549JBJ.

CA Paris, 9 January 2017, LawLex202200004540JBJ.

CA Paris, 28 February 2017, LawLex202200004258JBJ: when annexed to a contract for services, the bailment agreement, which entails a perpetual obligation for the bailee to return the thing deposited in kind, survives after the commissioned work has been completed.

Cass. 1re civ, 30 May 2006, LawLex202200001301JBJ. In this case, the Court of Cassation overruled the order of a court of appeal which, after noting that the parties were bound by a contract for services combined with a bailment agreement, had nevertheless held that the contract had ended with the completion of work on the boat, three months before it was destroyed in a fire on the contractor's premises, and that it had been succeeded by a so-called “dry port” agreement, comparable to the mere provision of a site, to which the rules regarding bailment did not apply.

Cass. 1re civ, 5 April 2005, LawLex202200004056JBJ; see in this respect, CA Pau, 9 July 2024, LawLex202400005331JBJ, specifying that it is for the owner of the vehicle who disputes owing storage costs to provide proof of the gratuitous nature of the contract; CA Toulouse, 17 September 2024, LawLex202400006587JBJ.

CA Colmar, 4 May 2022, LawLex202200004536JBJ, holding that it is for the court to determine the cost; CA Bordeaux, 4 June 2024, LawLex202400004206JBJ.

CA Bordeaux, 4 April 2022, LawLex202200004512JBJ.

CA Versailles, 16 November 2021, LawLex202200004570JBJ.

CA Bordeaux, 12 May 2022, LawLex202200004519JBJ.

CA Rouen, 5 January 2017, LawLex202200004542JBJ.

Business Contracts

310. Content

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

310. Content

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise