Facts
The dispute opposes W. S.A. (later becoming Y. S.A.), a commercial jewelry company, to X. S.A., responsible for storing the jewels in its warehouse at the Geneva free port. The jewels were delivered by W.'s supplier, V., to X., who stored them until W. gave the instruction to ship them to final customers. The parties had not provided for any remuneration for storage costs. On July 17, 1996, it was found that six packages of jewels had disappeared from X.'s warehouse.
W. claimed compensation from X. for its damage, which the Geneva courts estimated at 1,404,752 fr. with interest. X. appealed to the Federal Court, contesting the qualification of the contract and the liability attributed to it.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the nature of the contract binding the parties and concluded that it was a deposit contract, not a commission-expedition contract. Indeed, X. had not received the order to ship the jewels, but only to store them while waiting for a probable shipping order.
The Federal Court also examined X.'s liability as a depository. It found that X. had not taken the necessary security measures to protect the jewels, which had facilitated the theft. The court held that X. had not proven the absence of fault in the conservation of the entrusted goods and that the lack of diligence was likely to cause damage of the kind…