Logistics lawyer in Paris: lost warehouse stock and the depositary's liability.

No code governs the logistics contract as a whole. The judge breaks it down according to the services actually entrusted: custody of goods falls under deposit, defined by Article 1915 of the Civil Code as the act by which one receives another's property on condition of keeping it and returning it in kind. Receiving, order preparation, labelling or returns management are closer to a works contract. Carriage, if it dominates the operation, brings its own rules on delivery and limitation. The Grenoble Court of Appeal thus found a contract of deposit for a company responsible for the logistics of materials entrusted to it, without requiring a written contract to be produced (CA Grenoble, ch. com., 11 December 2025, No. 23/02196). That characterisation then governs the burden of proof, the time limit for acting and the scope of the clauses. The firm therefore starts by reading the contract, the general terms, the receipt notes and the invoices, because these documents show what the provider had actually undertaken to do. A commercial heading is not enough to fix the applicable regime.

The depositary must bring to the custody of the thing the same care as to its own property, under Article 1927 of the Civil Code, and Article 1928 of the Civil Code requires a stricter assessment where it is paid. The Court of Cassation infers from this that "although the depositary is bound only by an obligation of means, it is for it, in the event of loss or damage to the thing deposited, to prove that it had no part in it" (Cass. com., 18 February 2026, No. 24-17.226) (our translation). The shipper therefore does not have to show a specific fault: it establishes delivery of the goods, their condition and the loss or damage found. The provider must then prove that it gave the expected care, that the cause was force majeure or that the defect existed before the deposit. The First Civil Chamber adds that doubt about the cause of the damage benefits the depositor where the depositary fails to exonerate itself (Cass. 1re civ., 15 October 2025, No. 23-22.176). This allocation makes the goods-in documents, inventories and incident reports decisive.

The depositary has three routes. It can prove that it took the required care, rely on force majeure, or show that the damage existed before delivery. The Court of Cassation puts it this way: "The depositary may also exonerate itself by proving that the damage existed before the deposit" (Cass. com., 18 February 2026, No. 24-17.226) (our translation). Article 1929 of the Civil Code rules out liability for force majeure, unless the depositary had been given formal notice to return the goods. The Versailles Court of Appeal held that a provider had rebutted the presumption by showing a closed area and permanent remote surveillance in line with the contractual arrangements; the depositor's claim was dismissed (CA Versailles, ch. com. 3-1, 24 October 2024, No. 23/04991). This decision is unfavourable to the shipper and shows that the security specifications, signed by both parties, can serve as a defence for the logistics provider. The firm therefore examines the security undertakings stipulated, whether they were actually observed and the evidence each party can produce on that precise point.

Not automatically. Article 1218 of the Civil Code defines force majeure as an event beyond the debtor's control, unforeseeable when the contract was concluded and whose effects could not be avoided by appropriate measures. The Court of Cassation quashed a court of appeal that had accepted force majeure solely on the strength of a burglary complaint, without examining whether the depositary had taken measures to prevent the intrusion (Cass. com., 18 February 2026, No. 24-17.226). In another case, the access gate was out of order and three of the five cameras were not working: the court of appeal was entitled to hold that "the depositary had not taken the necessary precautions to avoid the theft, so that it could not rely on force majeure" (Cass. 1re civ., 6 June 2018, No. 16-26.783) (our translation). Conversely, a clause contractually classifying violent theft as force majeure was applied in the provider's favour (CA Versailles, ch. com. 3-1, 24 October 2024, No. 23/04991). The reading of the contract and the actual state of the protections on the day therefore guide the answer.

It all depends on the origin of the fire and the precautions taken. The Grenoble Court of Appeal confirmed that "the depositary's liability is excluded in a case of force majeure where the destruction of the property originates in an arson attack external to the depositary company" (CA Grenoble, ch. com., 11 December 2025, No. 23/02196) (our translation). This outcome rests on specific facts: a site closed off by fencing, permanent lighting, locked premises, and perpetrators who cut the fence and disabled the transformer before starting the fire. For the owner of the goods and its insurer, this decision is unfavourable: the owner's action had been declared inadmissible at first instance, and the court rejected the appeal of the subrogated insurer that had compensated the owner, the cover of the depositary's insurer not having to be called on. It does not make every fire a case of force majeure. A fire starting from an electrical installation, non-compliant storage or failing supervision does not have the same characteristics. The firm therefore requests the criminal investigation file, the fire expert reports, the compliance certificates and the correspondence with insurers before taking any position.

In principle yes, within certain limits. Article 1170 of the Civil Code deems unwritten any clause that deprives the debtor's essential obligation of its substance. Examining a reciprocal waiver of recourse signed by the warehouse keeper, the depositor and the depositary's insurer for a stock of pallets, the Nîmes Court of Appeal recalled that "Where a clause limiting liability does not empty the essential obligation of the storage contract of all substance, it must not be declared unwritten" (CA Nîmes, 4e ch. com., 19 December 2025, No. 23/02086) (our translation). It held that waiver valid. A compensation cap or a waiver of recourse can therefore be relied on against the shipper, so long as it does not empty the custody obligation of its substance. The same court nonetheless refused to apply the waiver because the depositary had committed gross negligence: Article 1231-3 of the Civil Code reserves the case of gross or wilful misconduct, which allows compensation beyond the foreseeable damage. Before accepting a cap or a waiver of recourse, it is therefore necessary to compare the value of the stock, each party's insurance and the extent of the arrangement agreed. After a loss, the firm checks whether the clause was actually accepted, how it is worded and the facts that may amount to gross negligence.

Gross negligence cannot be inferred from a mere breach of contract, even of an essential obligation; it requires conduct of particular seriousness. The Nîmes Court of Appeal holds that "Gross negligence is conduct of extreme seriousness, bordering on wilful misconduct and showing the debtor's inability to carry out the contractual mission it had accepted" (CA Nîmes, 4e ch. com., 19 December 2025, No. 23/02086) (our translation). In that case, pests had contaminated pallets of foodstuffs and the warehouse keeper had replaced affected products with products taken from other, sound pallets, thereby concealing the losses. The court reversed the judgment, rejected the objection of inadmissibility based on the waiver of recourse and ordered the logistics provider to compensate the depositor, its insurer being required to cover it within the limits of the policy. Proof of such negligence rests on records of condition, expert reports and internal correspondence. The firm therefore looks for evidence showing not mere carelessness but a disorganisation or concealment incompatible with the mission accepted.

Yes, to the extent of what is owed to it in respect of the deposit. Article 1948 of the Civil Code allows the depositary to retain the deposit until full payment of the sums due in respect of that deposit, and Article 2286 of the Civil Code opens the right of retention more broadly to a creditor whose claim arose in connection with holding the thing. The Agen Court of Appeal held that "the right of retention makes it possible to refuse return of the goods where the depositary is a creditor of the depositor under the deposit, and there is a connection between the depositary's claim and the contract of deposit" (CA Agen, ch. civ., 12 March 2025, No. 24/00219) (our translation). As the contract gave the provider a right of retention securing its claims, storage charges included, the client of an e-commerce logistics provider was ordered to pay the storage invoices issued during the retention. For the shipper, this decision is unfavourable; payment or consignment of only the sums admitted does not always suffice to lift the retention, and the balance is settled by agreement or before the judge. The firm checks the connection of each invoice with the goods retained.

No, not without the owner's agreement or a court decision. Article 1930 of the Civil Code forbids the depositary to use the thing without permission, and the right of retention only allows it to refuse return. The Versailles Court of Appeal held that, despite several requests to take back the stock that went unanswered, "the depositary could not dispose of the goods of the company Fleuron, other than by bringing a court action to be authorised to do so" (CA Versailles, ch. com. 3-1, 3 September 2025, No. 23/03331) (our translation). Having destroyed the pallets without authorisation, the depositary was ordered to compensate the loss of their value. An unpaid provider has other routes. Where its general terms stipulate a pledge over the goods, it can ask the judge for judicial allocation of them; the Lyon Court of Appeal ordered it and refused an authorisation to sell that had become pointless, "the allocation transferring ownership of it to the creditor", the surplus value going to the debtor (CA Lyon, 3e ch. A, 10 September 2026, No. 25/00404) (our translation). The firm identifies the clause, inventories the stock by a record of condition and chooses the appropriate procedure.

The time limit depends on the characterisation of the contract. Obligations arising between traders are subject to a five-year limitation period under Article 2224 of the Civil Code and Article L. 110-4 of the Commercial Code, unless a shorter special limitation period applies. A contract of carriage, for its part, falls under the one-year period laid down by Article L. 133-6 of the Commercial Code. The Versailles Court of Appeal recalls that "Where the obligation to move goods is the principal one, the contract is a contract of carriage and the warehousing of the goods on the carrier's premises is a preliminary and ancillary operation to the principal operation of carriage, whose regime it follows, whatever the duration of that deposit" (CA Versailles, ch. com. 3-1, 3 September 2025, No. 23/03331) (our translation). In the absence of transport invoices and with storage invoices on file, it found a contract of deposit and applied the five-year period. Conversely, the same court applied the one-year limitation period to a provider whose ancillary obligations had no autonomy from the carriage, which made part of its invoices inadmissible (CA Versailles, ch. com. 3-1, 17 June 2026, No. 23/07243). The starting point also differs: the five-year period runs from the day the holder knew or should have known the facts enabling it to act, whereas the one-year period runs, in the case of total loss, from the day the goods should have been delivered and, in other cases, from the day of delivery or tender to the consignee; each recourse action is subject to a period of one month.

Each characterisation carries its own liability regime, time limits and actions. A works contract is distinguished from carriage where its purpose goes beyond mere movement. Under the earlier law, the Court of Cassation held this for a removal, "the removal contract being a works contract, which differs from the contract of carriage in that its purpose is not limited to the movement of furniture" (Cass. com., 1 April 2003, No. 01-03.109) (our translation), thereby excluding the one-year limitation period. This outcome must now be read together with Article L. 133-9 of the Commercial Code, in force since 10 December 2009, which subjects to the carrier's rules, one-year limitation period included, a removal that includes carriage in part. As for the commission agent, it recalls that "the commission agent is the person who organises and has carried out, under its own responsibility and in its own name, a carriage of goods by the means of its choice on behalf of a principal" (Cass. com., 30 April 2025, No. 23-23.458) (our translation). It quashed a court of appeal that had found this status on the basis of a company registration extract and general terms, without establishing that a commission contract had been concluded for the shipment in dispute. The firm therefore reconstructs, operation by operation, who did what: receiving, storage, preparation, organisation of carriage or actual movement.

An established commercial relationship cannot be ended abruptly. Article L. 442-1 of the Commercial Code, in the version in force since 20 August 2026, engages the liability of a party that terminates without written notice taking account in particular of the length of the relationship, and provides that eighteen months' notice protects the terminating party from a challenge to its length. The Paris Court of Appeal recalls that "The notice period, which is assessed at the time the termination is notified, must be understood as the time the abandoned business needs to reorganise" (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 4, 29 October 2025, No. 23/13289) (our translation). In that case, an e-commerce logistics provider obtained compensation from the client that had ended the orders with insufficient notice. The text reserves termination without notice in the event of non-performance by the other party; the court nonetheless held that the client had not shown breaches serious enough to terminate without notice. The firm assesses the length of the relationship, economic dependence, dedicated investments, such as a warehouse or software, and the grievances raised on each side.