Customer success! Winning a dispute with a warehouse operator over damages due to stock shortages

This dispute illustrates how entrepreneurs can interpret contractual provisions differently, thus leading to a complete distortion of their meaning.

In the claim, the claimant (a logistics services operator and warehousing entrepreneur) sought payment for invoices issued for the provision of logistics services, i.e. the storage of the client’s goods in a warehouse, their picking and dispatching to the client’s contractors.

During the provision of these services, there were numerous irregularities on the part of the operator, resulting in damage to the Customer’s goods of almost PLN 1 million.

After the stocktaking and after the termination of the contract, the final settlement and the release of the goods from the warehouse, it turned out that the logistics operator “lost” the Client’s goods and was unable to explain how such a situation occurred.

During the process, the logistics operator invoked numerous allegations to absolve it of responsibility for the missing goods.

The claimant’s primary argument was that, as a warehouse operator, it was not obliged to count the goods that arrived at and were stored in the warehouse.

The claimant argued that its employees did not actually count the goods, but merely ‘read’ them off the labels as to quantity and type.

Consequently, despite drawing up PZ and WZ documents on a daily basis and sending the client stock balances showing goods coming into and going out of the warehouse, the claimant did not keep actual stock balances.

As a result of the evidentiary proceedings, the Regional Court in Gliwice found that the set-off made by the Client with regard to the claim for the revealed warehouse damage was effective and that the responsibility for the shortage of goods was borne entirely by the warehouse entrepreneur.

It stated that the contractual obligation of the warehousing entrepreneur is not only to store the goods, but also to exercise custody of the goods taken into storage, which is the essence of the warehousing contract (Article 853 of the Civil Code).

Therefore, in order to properly exercise custody, it is necessary for the warehousekeeper to count and identify the goods received and issued in advance.

Without this, the Claimant had no knowledge of the actual quantity of goods in its custody and the quantity of goods to be covered by the warehouse receipt.

The Tribunal, on the evidence, found that the Claimant had neglected this basic contractual obligation.

Reading the quantity and type of goods only from the manufacturers’ labels resulted in faulty stock keeping, both in terms of quantity and type, especially as only the warehousing entrepreneur had actual contact with the goods.

It is the task of the warehousekeeper to provide his principal with reliable information as to what he is actually taking into storage in the warehouse and in what quantity.

If, on the other hand, he is unable to cope with this task due to the nature of the stored items and the capacity of his business, he should not undertake it.

Consequently, the court rightly held that under Article 471 of the Civil Code, the client was entitled to claim compensation for the storage shortfall.

This provision provides for a presumption of fault on the part of the debtor with regard to the improper performance of the contract.

The court found that the client had demonstrated what the undue performance of the contract by the claimant consisted of and what it resulted in, and the claimant had not rebutted with any evidence the presumption of its fault in this respect.

Our client was supported in the case by: advocate

• Bartłomiej Pietruszka,
• advocate Paulina Sułkowska,
• apl. advocate Katarzyna Anioł-Michta.

The judgment is not final.