1. Recovery of damages requires proof of an infringement of rights and a direct causal link to the harm.

2. Under a concluded storage contract, the warehouse keeper’s obligation to store the item arises only after the depositor has delivered and handed over the item.

3. The parties may agree on reimbursement of future expenses.

The Supreme Court’s position

Under Contract No 272 dated 25 December 2018 on gratuitous (on demand) storage, the depositor (respondent) undertook to deliver technical cotton, while the warehouse keeper [bailee] (claimant) undertook to accept and store the goods.

Although under this contract the respondent was to deliver the technical cotton to the claimant, the respondent did not fulfil this obligation. The claimant alleges that the technical cotton was transported to it by means of motor vehicles belonging to third parties on the basis of contracts concluded with them, and that 46,759,600 soums were spent for this purpose, and therefore the claimant requests recovery of this amount as damages.

[The Collegium has cited Art 14 CC]. In this case, the respondent did not infringe the claimant’s rights and did not cause it any damage or harm [ziyon].

[The Collegium has cited Arts 875 I and 886]. According to these provisions of the Civil Code, under a storage contract, the obligation of the warehouse keeper to store the item arises after the depositor has delivered the item to it, and from that moment the necessary expenses of the warehouse keeper related to the storage of the item are reimbursed by the depositor.

However, in the present case, the claimant – without waiting for the depositor to deliver (bring) and hand over the technical cotton to the [bailee]’s warehouse – used motor vehicles of third parties and transported the technical cotton to its own premises.

[The Collegium has cited Art 887 I, II CC]. In the present case, the concluded contract does not provide that if the claimant transports the technical cotton to its own warehouse at its own expense, such expenses shall be reimbursed by the depositor. Moreover, there is no other agreement between the parties on this issue, nor is there any other document reflecting the defendant’s consent to reimburse such expenses.

Accordingly, the arguments stated in the Chamber’s cassation complaint [submitted on behalf of the claimant] – that Art 9 CC establishes the prohibition of actions of citizens and legal entities aimed at causing harm to another person, at the abuse of the right in other forms, as well as at the exercise of the right in contradiction with its purpose, and that participants in civil-law relations must act conscientiously [halol], reasonably, and fairly[;] and that the judicial collegium incorrectly interpreted Art 886 II of the Uzbek Civil Code when handing down its decision – are unfounded and are not accepted by the judicial panel.

The argument based on Art 442 II CC, cited in the Chamber’s statement of claim and cassation complaint, also cannot serve as grounds for satisfying the claim, since this provision of the Civil Code regulates civil relations arising not from a storage contract, but from a supply contract.

From the foregoing it follows that the court of first instance, when rendering its decision on the dispute, and the appellate court, when leaving the decision unchanged, correctly applied the norms of substantive and procedural law and rendered a lawful decision.