Problems in debt enforcement on confiscated goods under the deposit legislation

Abstract

The Civil and Commercial Code regarding the deposit of property grants the depositor the right to use the right of retention on the deposited property if the depositor fails to pay the rent or expenses arising from the deposit. However, it does not grant the depositor the right to enforce debt payment from the retained property, unlike the laws governing sales contracts, carriage of goods contracts, passenger carriage contracts, and especially hotelier contracts, which fall under the category of deposit contracts. These laws grant creditors the right to enforce debt payment from the retained property under specific conditions and methods prescribed by law, without the need to file a lawsuit in court. In contrast, for deposit contracts, the depositor must apply the general principle of debt law regarding the right of retention, which prevents the depositor from enforcing debt payment from the retained property. The law only grants the right to retain the property as security for debt payment.

Therefore, applying the principles of other contracts to the deposit contract, in order to grant the depositor the right to enforce debt payment on the seized property, would likely be more appropriate and beneficial to the depositor.