It might be challenging to determine which legal regime applies when a contract encompasses several services (order management, document flow, handling, storage, transport, etc.).
The idea that the accessory adheres to the principle is frequently used by the courts:
For instance, it was decided that a contract that primarily dealt with storage should be interpreted as a deposit contract, with the other services (handling, transportation) being considered incidental.
In a different case where the contract included storage, transportation, handling, and distribution—all of which were equally important—and where the transportation was not the contract’s primary goal, it was ruled that the contract should be qualified as a deposit contract.
As a result, the liability framework and limitation period relevant to deposit contracts were enforced.
Conversely, in a different case, it was determined that the primary objective of the contract was the transportation of goods, while the services related to handling, storage, and sorting were considered ancillary to the fulfillment of the main obligation. Consequently, the liability framework and limitation period pertinent to the transportation in question were applied.
It is crucial to ensure that contractual provisions are explicit and to eliminate any ambiguous terms that may compel the courts to interpret the mutual intent of the parties, which is not always straightforward.
Thus, it is vital to distinctly outline the contract’s purpose, the range of services to be rendered, and the responsibilities of the parties involved.
The classification of the contract will influence the applicable liability framework, making the stakes significantly high.
Ansam Okbani – Lawyer-Independent Consultant, Madrid (Spain), LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/okbaniansam/
Email: ansamokbani@outlook.com
Comments are closed