Storage of Unaccepted Goods in Russia: Dispute Resolution

 

October 3, 2025

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

The commercial supply process often involves disputes not always resolved by the contract. One such issue is the buyer's refusal to accept goods after they have been delivered and handed over. Typically, upon receiving a claim, the supplier enters into correspondence with the buyer, which may drag on for days (or sometimes weeks or months). Sometimes, the supplier immediately accepts the remarks and is ready to replace or supply the missing goods but cannot do so promptly for objective reasons (e.g., due to remote location). Consequently, the delivered and unaccepted goods remain with the buyer and may stay there for a long time. This raises several questions:

• What should the buyer do with this property?
• At whose expense will the goods be stored, and who must organize the storage?
• Who pays for transporting the goods back to the supplier?
• Must the supplier and buyer conclude a special goods storage agreement?
• Is the buyer liable for damage to or loss of such goods?

The answer lies in Article 514 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Civil Code"). This rule establishes a special regime for the preservation of unaccepted goods known as "responsible storage" (custody).

What is Responsible Storage?

Responsible storage is a special legal construct regulating the rights and obligations of parties when goods have physically arrived at the buyer's location (i.e., delivered and shipped), but the buyer refuses to accept them for motivated reasons. In this context, "acceptance" implies positive acceptance, i.e., the absence of claims regarding quantity, quality, or completeness, and the signing of relevant acceptance documents. Such acceptance confirms the supplier's fulfillment of its contractual obligation.

If the goods are physically delivered to the buyer, but the buyer does not accept them, the supplier may take the goods back immediately. For example, if cargo is delivered by truck, an inspection occurs on the day of arrival in the presence of the forwarder, the buyer identifies defects, and the goods are loaded back and removed from the buyer's territory on the same day. In this case, responsible storage does not arise.

However, if the goods remain with the buyer for a certain period, Article 514 of the Civil Code comes into effect, and the duty of responsible storage falls upon the buyer.

The regime of responsible storage involves the following:

• The buyer must notify the supplier of the refusal of the goods.
• The buyer must accept the goods for responsible storage and ensure their safety.
• The supplier must remove the goods or otherwise dispose of them within a reasonable time.
• If the supplier fails to remove or dispose of the goods within the established period, the buyer has the right to either sell the property independently or return it to the supplier.
• The supplier reimburses the buyer for expenses related to the storage, sale, or return of the goods.
• If the buyer sells the goods, the buyer transfers the proceeds to the supplier, deducting the incurred expenses.

In Which Situations Must the Buyer Accept Goods for Responsible Storage?

The buyer's obligation to accept goods for responsible storage arises when the buyer refuses the goods on grounds provided by law or contract.

Reasons for the buyer's refusal of transferred goods include:

• Delivery of less than the agreed quantity (Art. 466 (1) of the Civil Code). In this situation, the buyer may choose one of two options: demand the supply of the missing quantity or refuse the goods entirely. If the buyer chooses the first option, no duty of responsible storage arises, as the buyer consents to accept the delivered part on the condition that the remaining part is also transferred. If the buyer chooses the second option (refusal of goods), payment for the delivered goods is not made, any advance payment must be returned, and the "refused" goods are accepted for responsible storage.
• Delivery of goods in an improper assortment (Art. 468 of the Civil Code). The buyer has the right to refuse such goods. If the assortment is violated only regarding part of the goods, the buyer may, at their discretion, refuse either the non-compliant part or the entire volume of goods. The buyer must inform the supplier of the refusal within a reasonable time; otherwise, the goods will be considered accepted, and the duty of responsible storage will not arise.
• Claims regarding the quality of the delivered goods. The law conditionally divides situations involving the supply of low-quality goods into two types. The first type includes so-called minor or remediable defects (which can be eliminated without disproportionate financial or time costs and occur once). Upon identifying such defects, the buyer may, at their discretion, demand a price reduction, gratuitous elimination of defects, or reimbursement of expenses for their elimination (Art. 475 (1), Art. 518 (1) of the Civil Code). The law does not provide for the refusal of goods in this situation; therefore, the need for responsible storage does not arise. The second type implies more serious, irremediable defects requiring disproportionate monetary or time resources, occurring repeatedly, or reappearing after elimination. In this case, the buyer has other options: refuse to perform the contract or demand replacement (Art. 475 (2), Art. 518 (1) of the Civil Code). In both scenarios, the buyer declares a refusal of the goods, triggering the duty of responsible storage. It does not matter whether the goods are replaced or the contract is terminated: the property will remain with the buyer for some time until the supplier removes it.
• Delivery of incomplete goods. The situation develops in stages. Upon the initial delivery of incomplete goods, the buyer has the right to demand a price reduction or completion of the goods (Art. 480 (1), Art. 519 (1) of the Civil Code). Only if the supplier fails to fulfill this requirement within a reasonable time does the buyer acquire the right to refuse the goods: the buyer may declare a refusal to perform the contract or demand replacement (Art. 480 (2), Art. 519 (1) of the Civil Code). Since both the refusal of the contract and the demand for replacement imply a refusal of the delivered goods, such goods must be accepted by the buyer for responsible storage.

It should be noted that for the supply of goods of improper quantity, assortment, or completeness, the legal norms are dispositive: the parties may establish a different interaction procedure in the contract, and the buyer's rights and options may differ from those in the Civil Code. For cases of supply of low-quality goods, the buyer's rights are fixed imperatively in the law, and deviation is possible only if permitted by other regulations. Furthermore, the list of grounds for the buyer's refusal of goods under the contract may be broader than in the law.

Thus, responsible storage requires the simultaneous presence of two factors:

• The buyer has declared a categorical refusal of the specific delivered goods. Such refusal may be expressed as a unilateral refusal to perform the contract or a demand to replace the goods. If the buyer's claim is of a different nature and does not imply refusal of the goods themselves (e.g., the buyer demands a price reduction due to quality defects), responsible storage does not arise.
• The refusal of goods is based on law or contract. This point is fundamentally important: if the refusal is declared without legal or contractual grounds, the rules of responsible storage do not apply. In such a situation, other norms regulating the buyer's unlawful evasion of acceptance apply: the supplier has the right to demand that the buyer accept and pay for the goods (Art. 514 (4) of the Civil Code).

How to Formalize Acceptance for Responsible Storage

If the buyer refuses the goods, they are obligated to notify the supplier. The law does not define a specific deadline or method for such notification, but there is one condition: the supplier must be notified immediately. Based on established practice, a message sent as quickly as capabilities and circumstances allow is considered immediate.

Such notification has the status of a legally significant message; therefore, the special legal regime established by Article 165.1 of the Civil Code and Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 25 dated June 23, 2015, On the Application by Courts of Certain Provisions of Section I of Part One of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Plenum No. 25") applies.

The notification is sent to the supplier at the official address recorded in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (USRLE) or specified in the contract for sending legally significant messages. If the supplier's representatives are absent at the specified address or correspondence is not received for other reasons, the supplier bears the risks of the consequences of non-receipt (paragraphs 63, 64 of Plenum No. 25). The notification is considered delivered even if it reached the supplier but the supplier did not receive it or familiarize themselves with the content due to reasons directly dependent on them (Art. 165.1 (1) of the Civil Code, paragraph 67 of Plenum No. 25). For example, if the buyer sent the notification via Russian Post to the address specified in the USRLE, and the supplier did not appear at the post office, the correspondence is still considered delivered.

Typically, the method of sending such notifications is fixed in the contract. The buyer may use any electronic means of communication (including electronic document management systems, corporate email, or messengers) subject to two conditions (paragraph 65 of Plenum No. 25):

• The method of sending used does not contradict the terms of the contract.
• When sending, it is possible to reliably establish who sent the message and to whom it is addressed.

The law contains no mandatory requirements regarding the content of such notification. It is assumed that the buyer must primarily inform the supplier promptly of the refusal of goods, stating the reasons, as this affects the fate of the goods and the transaction as a whole (paragraph 66 of Plenum No. 25).

The notification of refusal does not necessarily have to state that the goods are accepted for responsible storage: this obligation stems from the law, and the buyer, having expressed refusal, must fulfill it by default. The buyer may inform the supplier of the acceptance additionally by a separate letter. In this way, the buyer confirms compliance with the legal requirement and warns the counterparty of the need to reimburse expenses later.

A separate issue is the permissible term of responsible storage. The law does not establish a minimum or maximum term for this measure. Contracts also typically lack such a term. In practice, the buyer determines the period during which they are willing to store the goods and informs the supplier of this term in writing. By the specified date, the supplier must remove the goods or dispose of them; otherwise, upon expiration of the term, the buyer has the right to return the goods to the supplier or sell them independently (Art. 514 (2) of the Civil Code). The only condition is that the term set for the supplier must be reasonable. This means the buyer will have to consider the supplier's location and transport accessibility.

A specific feature of responsible storage of unaccepted goods is that it does not constitute an independent transaction, as it arises within the framework of the supply contract. Therefore, a separate storage agreement is not concluded. However, the absence of a contractual document does not mean the relationship remains unregulated: pursuant to Article 906 of the Civil Code, storage arising by operation of law is subject to the general rules of Chapter 47 of the Civil Code regulating storage obligations.

By law, a storage agreement may be concluded in simple written form, for which the issuance of a unilateral document signed by the person accepting the goods for storage is sufficient (Art. 887 (2) of the Civil Code). In this situation, such a document is the act of acceptance of goods for responsible storage. It records the name and quantity of goods, storage conditions and procedures, the date of acceptance for storage, and the expected storage period. The buyer may execute the act unilaterally. Calling a supplier representative is not mandatory by law, but the parties may agree in the contract on the necessity of the counterparty's presence.

The regime of responsible storage arises by operation of law, so the supplier's consent is not required. However, the law does not prohibit recording the conditions of responsible storage in a bilateral written agreement drawn up after the buyer's refusal of the goods. Such a document allows the parties to agree on physical measures for property preservation and the amount of expenses the supplier will have to compensate. Additionally, some customers practice including special conditions in supply contracts regulating the responsible storage procedure and the approximate composition of buyer expenses subject to reimbursement.

Accounting and Tax Accounting of Goods Accepted for Responsible Storage

Having declared a refusal of goods and accepted them for responsible storage, the buyer accounts for such property on off-balance sheet account 002 "Inventory accepted for responsible storage."[1]

If the supplier returns the advance payment for unaccepted goods to the buyer, these funds are not included in the buyer's income for tax accounting purposes, as they do not increase economic benefit. For the same reason, the buyer incurs neither income nor expenses upon the return of low-quality goods (Art. 41 (1), Art. 252 (1) of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (the "Tax Code")).[2] If the cost of low-quality goods was already reflected in expenses for any reason, the reporting for the period in which such expenses were recognized is subject to adjustment (Art. 81 of the Tax Code).

When calculating income tax, the buyer does not account for the return of low-quality goods to the supplier.

The buyer reflects expenses for responsible storage, sale, or return of goods to the supplier in tax accounting as non-operating expenses (Art. 265 (1)(20) of the Tax Code). The accounting of such expenses for profit tax purposes does not depend on whether the supplier reimbursed the costs. The recorded expenses must be economically justified and documentarily confirmed (Art. 252 (1) of the Tax Code).

If the buyer received compensation from the supplier for responsible storage costs (as well as for the sale or return of goods), these funds are included in non-operating income (Art. 250, Art. 346.15 (1) of the Tax Code). In the buyer's accounting, these amounts are reflected as other income on the date the supplier acknowledged the debt.[3]

Who Reimburses the Buyer for Storage Expenses?

The supplier is obligated to reimburse the buyer for expenses incurred (Art. 514 (3) of the Civil Code):

• For storage of the goods.
• For the forced sale of the goods if the supplier failed to remove or dispose of them in time.
• For the return of the goods to the supplier if the buyer was forced to organize the return independently.

When recovering such expenses, courts are guided by the general principles of damages reimbursement established in Articles 15 and 393 of the Civil Code, as well as in Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 7 dated March 24, 2016, On the Application by Courts of Certain Provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on Liability for Breach of Obligations (the "Plenum No. 7"):

• The supplier's fault and a causal link between the supplier's conduct and the buyer's damages must be present. In this case, confirmation includes the defects in the goods that led to the buyer's refusal and acceptance for storage, and regarding costs for sale or removal — the absence of timely disposal of the goods by the supplier.
• The creditor, i.e., the buyer, must prove the incurred damages. They must confirm not only the amount of costs but also prove their justification, necessity, and connection with accepting the goods for responsible storage. The supplier may object to claimed damages if the buyer could have reduced their amount but failed to take measures to do so (paragraph 4 of Plenum No. 7). For example, if the buyer chose a warehouse with a higher price from two identical and available warehouses without apparent reason.
• Two types of damages are distinguished: actual damage (actual expenses) and lost profits (income not received). Under responsible storage, only actual damage is compensated; lost profits are not reimbursed. [4]
• If the exact amount of damages cannot be established, this does not prevent their reimbursement. In this case, the court determines the amount of damages based on circumstances, taking into account the principles of fairness and proportionality (paragraph 4 of Plenum No. 7).
• The principle of full compensation of damages applies (i.e., reimbursement of all proven costs), but the creditor's enrichment at the debtor's expense is inadmissible. This means expenses compensated to the buyer from other sources are excluded from the composition of damages. [5]

The most common form of buyer expenses in this situation is payment for third-party services, i.e., concluding an agreement with a professional custodian to store goods in a warehouse. Damages are confirmed by a standard set of documents on contract performance: the storage agreement itself, acts of transfer of goods to the custodian, invoices for payment, and payment orders. [6]

The supplier is obliged to compensate costs even if the buyer has not yet paid for the services at the time of the demand, i.e., funds have not been transferred to the custodian. An example is a court case involving the supply of defective metal structures, which the buyer placed in storage by concluding an agreement with a goods warehouse. The agreement assumed monthly payment for storage services, but the buyer did not pay the custodian's fee due to a difficult financial situation. On this basis, the supplier attempted to object to the claim for damages reimbursement, pointing out that payment orders were not presented and the buyer had incurred no actual monetary expenses. However, the court sided with the buyer and recovered the cost of storage from the supplier. The court's position is motivated by the principle of recoverability of future damages if the creditor has not yet incurred actual costs to restore the violated right at the time of the demand. In this case, the court is guided by the proof of potential expenses, i.e., the storage agreement, acts of delivery for storage, and invoices issued by the custodian to the buyer. [7]

In contractual practice, a condition is allowed whereby the fee for responsible storage constitutes the average market cost of storage services. For example, the Cassation Court of the Far Eastern District considered a dispute and recognized the buyer's claim for cost compensation calculated based on several commercial proposals from professional custodians. The supply contract stipulated that the calculation of the responsible storage cost be based on Rosstat statistical data, or absent such data, on price monitoring data in the region. The regional division of Rosstat confirmed in writing that it lacked such reference information, so the buyer independently collected price proposals and formed the amount of their claim based on them.[8]

In another similar case, the Seventeenth Arbitration Appeal Court used the average market cost of storage services in the region as a basis. The supplier delivered a defective fan to the buyer. The buyer refused the goods, accepted them for responsible storage, and later demanded reimbursement of costs. A certificate from the Perm Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the average market cost of storage services in the Perm Territory for the entire storage period (from 2013 to 2015) was presented as proof of incurred costs. Based on the certificate, the buyer made a calculation, the amount of which was presented for reimbursement. The court recovered the claimed amount from the supplier.[9]

Another common form of storage costs is concluding a lease agreement for space to house unaccepted goods. The evidentiary base in this case will be the lease agreement, the act of transfer of premises to the tenant, invoices issued by the landlord, and payment documents. There will be no special act of handing over goods to a third party for storage since the landlord is not a custodian and does not accept goods for storage. Therefore, the buyer will also have to prove that they rented a specific warehouse or premise specifically for the disputed goods and not for other purposes.[10]

If possible, the buyer may store goods on their own territory without resorting to third-party services. However, in this case, proving storage costs will be much more difficult: there is a consistent practice of denying damages reimbursement to organizations that carried out responsible storage on their own territory. In such a situation, some buyers attempt to calculate costs using reports on the valuation of the market value of rent for the facilities where the goods were located. However, courts reject such claims on the grounds that the buyer did not incur actual expenses. [11]

This approach is justified only if the buyer cannot confirm their costs with any documents other than the market rent valuation report. Undoubtedly, expenses can arise even if the disputed goods remain on the customer's territory at all times. Primarily, this involves the additional cost of energy resources. For example, electricity, if storage conditions require lighting or other power supply, or heating, if a special thermal regime is required. In some cases, additional materials or equipment (e.g., refrigeration units or special storage containers) must be purchased for preservation. Furthermore, storing certain goods implies regular sanitary treatment of storage areas, performed only by specialized organizations. For example, for grain storage, an elevator building must undergo regular sanitary treatment for rodent protection. Since the buyer must ensure the safety of goods during the responsible storage period, they may engage additional security services, or if a contract with a security organization already exists, the cost of security services may increase due to the expansion of the guarded area. Additionally, the buyer's personnel may be actively involved in storage activities. If it is proven that the payroll fund increased specifically due to the responsible storage of goods, these expenses can also be included in damages.

In any case, the buyer will have to justify the chosen storage method:

• Prove that the least expensive storage method was chosen (e.g., renting a warehouse was cheaper than storage at their own site).
• Prove that the chosen storage method is most suitable for the goods (e.g., renting a cold warehouse is cheaper than renting one with heating, but a special temperature regime is established for these goods, so the buyer rented a more expensive heated premise).

If the buyer organizes the return of goods to the supplier at their own expense, the supplier must reimburse transportation costs, as well as all related transport services (loading, unloading, processing shipping documents, forwarding). The organization of cargo delivery is confirmed by shipping documents depending on the type of transport used, as well as payment documents.[12] At the same time, the buyer must be ready to justify that they chose the most efficient and least expensive delivery method. For example, grain delivery can be carried out by road, sea, or river transport, as well as by rail. However, it is expedient to use water transport provided the consignee's location is accessible, while grain can only be transported by truck over short distances. Therefore, the delivery of grain cargo to another region will typically be organized by rail, even if its price proves higher than trucking.

A clear example is a case regarding the return of defective metal products. The buyer organized the return of goods to the supplier by road transport and claimed cost reimbursement. Intercity transportation tariffs vary depending on vehicle load capacity. The buyer chose a more expensive tariff, although the volume of metal products transported could have been loaded into a vehicle with a lower load capacity. As a result, the court calculated the amount of the buyer's costs based on the lowest tariff that could have been applied for the delivery of the disputed goods. [13]

As noted, the buyer is obligated to notify the supplier of the refusal to accept the goods. However, the necessity of responsible storage arises by operation of law, so the buyer does not have to notify the supplier of the details of the storage process. During the storage period, they are not obligated to inform the supplier that they have concluded a storage or lease agreement at a certain price with a third party (although such an obligation can be provided for in the supply contract). Sometimes suppliers try to object to a claim for damages on the grounds that they were not notified in advance of the transfer of goods for storage to a third party. Courts reject such arguments: the degree of the supplier's awareness does not affect the buyer's right to compensation for incurred costs. [14]

However, if the supply contract initially stipulates the necessity to notify the supplier specifically of the fact of accepting goods for responsible storage or handing them over for storage to a third party, the buyer must fulfill this. Thus, the Cassation Court of the North-Western District considered a dispute in which the buyer, having claims regarding the goods, did not accompany their actions with written notifications: they recorded the defects in a unilateral act, did not send a claim for replacement to the supplier, and subsequently organized the return independently. In violation of the contract terms, the buyer did not notify the supplier of accepting the goods for storage. The court refused to reimburse the buyer for storage expenses. [15]

Can the Buyer Demand Remuneration for Storing Goods?

Sometimes, in addition to actual costs incurred, the buyer attempts to obtain remuneration for storage from the supplier. This point is quite controversial. The fact is that Article 514 of the Civil Code does not mention remuneration. Moreover, even an independent transaction for the provision of storage services can be either with or without remuneration (Art. 897 of the Civil Code):

• If remuneration is established for storage, then by default, all custodian costs are included in the remuneration amount. If an organization provides storage services as a business activity (warehouse), such storage is always paid by remuneration (Art. 907 of the Civil Code).
• Storage without payment of remuneration is also permitted, and this applies not only to storage by operation of law but also to storage by contract. However, with such storage, the bailor is obliged to reimburse the custodian for all incurred expenses.

Both constructions are dispositive, meaning parties can agree on a different payment procedure and distribute storage expenses differently than in the law.

Remuneration and expense compensation are fundamentally different payments:

• Expense compensation is not payment for a service; it qualifies as damages. The exact amount of costs, as a rule, cannot be known in advance; it is confirmed by fact with relevant documents.
• Remuneration is payment for a service, implying the existence of onerous storage relations between the parties. Responsible storage under Article 514 of the Civil Code arises by operation of law and does not require a bilateral contractual document, whereas onerous storage is storage "by contract," and in this case, an independent transaction takes place.

It is important to note: by default, responsible storage under Article 514 of the Civil Code does not imply remuneration. The law establishes the supplier's obligation to reimburse the buyer only for incurred expenses; Article 514 of the Civil Code does not provide for other payments (Art. 514 (3) of the Civil Code). [16] This situation falls under Article 897 (2) of the Civil Code: gratuitous storage with the bailor's obligation to reimburse the custodian for necessary expenses. Therefore, if there was no special written agreement between the supplier and the buyer regarding any remuneration for storing unaccepted goods, the buyer has no right to demand any payments from the supplier other than expense compensation.

At the same time, charging remuneration for responsible storage of unaccepted goods is not prohibited by law. The parties may conclude an additional storage agreement agreeing on the cost of storage services. Such an agreement will be executed as an independent transaction: the parties draw up an act of handing over goods for storage, an act of return from storage, and operations will be reflected in the buyer's accounting as the onerous sale of storage services. If the buyer is a VAT payer, the remuneration is calculated including VAT (Art. 146 (1) of the Tax Code).

Furthermore, remuneration for responsible storage can be provided for immediately in the supply contract itself. Such a construction somewhat contradicts the spirit of Article 514 of the Civil Code, but it is actively used in business practice: even before the start of supply, the parties agree on a fixed storage cost per day, calculated either immediately for the entire volume of property or per unit of goods. [17]

If the parties agreed that remuneration would be charged for responsible storage, they must also agree on the fate of expenses. By default, these expenses should be included in the remuneration amount, but this rule is dispositive, and the law allows stipulating other conditions. Therefore, if the parties agreed in writing on the cost of responsible storage services without specifying the expense compensation procedure, the buyer will only be able to claim the remuneration amount, especially if it is comparable to their costs. If the buyer intends to receive compensation for incurred costs from the supplier in addition to remuneration, this must be explicitly and clearly formulated in the contract or agreement.

Buyer's Liability for Goods Accepted for Responsible Storage

A buyer who has received improper goods and is ready to refuse them faces a choice: formalize the acceptance of goods for responsible storage, thereby taking on the risks of their loss, or violate the legal requirement and ignore Article 514 of the Civil Code. It should be noted that if the supplier did not remove the unaccepted goods immediately, the responsibility for their safety falls on the buyer in any case, regardless of whether they formalized acceptance for storage with the necessary documents.

In this situation, the buyer bears liability according to the general rules established for storage obligations (Art. 906 of the Civil Code):

• The buyer must ensure the safety of the goods, i.e., create storage conditions that correspond to business customs as well as the properties of the property. By default, the buyer must observe fire and sanitary standards during storage. Since storage under Article 514 of the Civil Code implies no remuneration, the rule applies to the buyer: they must care for the goods accepted for storage no less than for their own property (Art. 891 of the Civil Code).
• The buyer has no right to use the goods without the supplier's consent (Art. 892 of the Civil Code).
• The buyer must return to the supplier strictly the goods accepted for storage (Art. 900 of the Civil Code). An exception is products that allow storage with commingling (loss of identity) (e.g., grain, flour, fuel).

Under Article 514 of the Civil Code, the buyer is not a person carrying out storage as a type of entrepreneurial activity. This is due to the nature of the legal construct: storage occurs by operation of law and does not provide for remuneration. Therefore, the buyer is liable according to the rules established for a non-professional custodian:

• They are liable for loss or damage to goods only if there is fault (intent or negligence). If the buyer took all possible measures for storage and demonstrated care and prudence corresponding to business turnover conditions and the nature of the goods, they will be found not guilty (Articles 401, 901 of the Civil Code).
• If the supplier failed to remove the goods or dispose of them within a reasonable time, the buyer is still liable for loss, shortage, or damage to the goods upon expiration of this period. But in this case, liability arises only if there is intent or gross negligence (Art. 901 (2) of the Civil Code).
• The buyer is responsible for the safety of property regardless of the duration of such storage.[18]

If guilt is proven, the buyer will be obliged to reimburse the supplier for damages for damaged or lost goods. By default, the amount of such damages is calculated according to the rules established for gratuitous storage (Art. 902 (2) of the Civil Code):

• For loss and shortage — in the amount of the value of the lost or missing goods.
• For damage — in the amount by which the price of the goods was reduced.

However, the parties may stipulate a different procedure for calculating damages in the supply contract, for example, a percentage increase in the value of lost goods or independent expertise to calculate the volume of damages.

An example is a dispute regarding the return of pipelines supplied in excess quantity to the supplier. The buyer refused the surplus goods and accepted them for storage. The accepted volume of the pipeline was not returned to the supplier, which served as grounds for claiming damages. The court recognized damages in the amount of the value of goods not returned from storage. [19]

In another similar case, the parties provided in the supply contract for the buyer's obligation to accept goods for storage if the acceptance procedure lasted more than one day, as well as upon identification of low-quality or incomplete products. The risk of accidental loss or accidental damage to products during storage was placed on the buyer. During the supply, the buyer rejected products due to quality defects, placed them in storage, but subsequently returned only part of the goods to the supplier. The court obliged the buyer to reimburse damages in the volume of missing products.[20]

Final Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, we note the characteristic features of the regime of responsible storage of unaccepted goods:

• The obligation to store unaccepted goods arises for the buyer by operation of law, i.e., by default. A separate storage agreement between the supplier and the buyer is not concluded for this, as storage arises within the framework of the supply contract.
• The buyer is obliged to notify the supplier in writing of their refusal of the goods. The law does not obligate the buyer to notify of acceptance for storage, but it is advisable to inform the supplier of this for further correct interaction.
• All expenses for responsible storage of goods are borne by the buyer. They are obliged to ensure the safety of another's property and take all necessary measures for this. If the specifics of the goods require special storage conditions, this is also the buyer's task.
• The supplier will have to reimburse the buyer for all expenses incurred in connection with storage. If the buyer is forced to sell the goods or return them to the supplier, these expenses are also compensated.
• Buyer expenses for storage, sale, or delivery of goods must be confirmed by documents. When choosing a storage or transportation method, the buyer should choose the most reasonable and economical option; otherwise, their damages will be compensated partially.
• By default, the buyer has no right to demand remuneration for responsible storage (the law provides only for reimbursement of damages). However, the parties may agree on such a condition and specify a fixed storage fee in the supply contract. Additionally, after the buyer refuses the goods, it is possible to conclude a separate commercial storage agreement, which will qualify as an independent transaction.
• If goods were damaged or lost during responsible storage, the buyer will have to reimburse damages to the supplier unless they prove that they took all possible measures for the property's safety.

To minimize risks when concluding a supply contract, it is recommended to foresee and agree on conditions related to responsible storage in advance:

• Fix in the contract the procedure and order of notifying the supplier not only of the refusal of goods but also of the fact of accepting goods for storage.
• If necessary, establish the maximum duration of possible storage.
• Provide for a mutual settlement procedure for storage. The parties may fix remuneration in the contract in the form of a fixed storage payment rate (e.g., calculated per day). In this case, the fate of the buyer's actual costs must be agreed upon in the contract: indicate whether they are included in the remuneration or compensated additionally.
• If the subject of supply is goods with generic characteristics (e.g., cereals, flour, or fuel), it is desirable to indicate the possibility of commingled storage (storage with loss of identity). If segregated storage of such goods (without commingling) is fundamentally important to the supplier, this should be specifically indicated in the contract, as such a storage method often requires specialized warehouse conditions.

________________________

References

[1] Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 94n dated October 31, 2000, On Approval of the Chart of Accounts for Financial and Economic Activities of Organizations and Instructions for its Application.

[2] Letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 03-03-06/3/34278 dated June 14, 2016.

[3] Paragraphs 7, 10.2, 16 of the Accounting Regulation "Income of the Organization" PBU 9/99, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia No. 32n dated May 6, 1999.

[4] Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the East Siberian District dated October 18, 2013, in case No. A58-7497/2012.

[5] Determination of the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 305-ES21-28531 dated April 14, 2022, in case No. A40-18728/2021.

[6] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. F05-15471/2022 dated July 11, 2022, in case No. A40-161452/2021.

[7] Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Appeal Court No. 09AP-5816/2025, 09AP-5819/2025 dated May 5, 2025, in case No. A40-122554/2023.

[8] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District No. F03-756/2023 dated March 28, 2023, in case No. A51-9993/2022.

[9] Resolution of the Seventeenth Arbitration Appeal Court No. 17AP-3854/2017-GK dated May 23, 2017, in case No. A50-23911/2016.

[10] Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Ural District No. F09-1972/12 dated March 22, 2012, in case No. A76-6846/2011; Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District No. F07-21844/2022 dated January 19, 2023, in case No. A42-674/2022; Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District No. F07-569/2014 dated January 30, 2015, in case No. A56-17379/2014.

[11] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District No. F07-4417/2025 dated July 10, 2025, in case No. A13-10814/2024; Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District No. F07-22906/2022 dated January 31, 2023, in case No. A56-29180/2020.

[12] Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. VAS-3214/14 dated May 30, 2014, in case No. A26-5441/2012; Resolution of the Thirteenth Arbitration Appeal Court dated August 1, 2013, in case No. A26-5441/2012.

[13] Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District dated October 6, 2011, in case No. A13-394/2011.

[14] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District No. F05-14111/2023 dated June 30, 2023, in case No. A40-136485/2022.

[15] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District dated November 25, 2015, in case No. A56-80944/2014.

[16] Article-by-article commentary to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Part Two. Grishaev S.P., Svit Yu.P., Bogacheva T.V. // Prepared for the ConsultantPlus system, 2021; Commercial Law: Textbook for Universities. Egorova M.A. // RANEPA under the President of the Russian Federation, "Statut", 2013; Main directions of antimonopoly regulation in the sphere of food trade. Egorova M.A. // "Competition Law", 2012, No. 1.

[17] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Far Eastern District No. F03-2857/2022 dated August 1, 2022, in case No. A73-18945/2021.

[18] Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 301-ES19-5994 dated August 1, 2019.

[19] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District No. F04-4201/2023 dated September 20, 2023, in case No. A46-7708/2022.

[20] Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District No. F04-2091/2019 dated June 11, 2019, in case No. A75-11485/2018.