Short answer. No, unless you agreed otherwise. Article 1973 provides that unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the depositary cannot deposit the thing with a third person. Where a sub-deposit is allowed, he remains liable for the loss if he chose someone manifestly careless or unfit.

What the law says

Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the depositary cannot deposit the thing with a third person. If deposit with a third person is allowed, the depositary is liable for the loss if he deposited the thing with a person who is manifestly careless or unfit. The depositary is responsible for the negligence of his employees.

Civil Code, Article 1973 — No Sub-Deposit Without Consent. Read the full provision →

The custodian was chosen, and cannot substitute himself

Article 1973 provides that Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the depositary cannot deposit the thing with a third person. If deposit with a third person is allowed, the depositary is liable for the loss if he deposited the thing with a person who is manifestly careless or unfit. The depositary is responsible for the negligence of his employees. A deposit is entered into because of who the custodian is: his premises, his systems, his reputation. Handing the goods to somebody else substitutes a party you never assessed, so consent is required, and the article makes that the default rather than something you must think to negotiate.

Permission does not transfer the risk

Even a warehouse that is contractually allowed to sub-deposit does not thereby escape. It remains liable for the loss where it placed the goods with a person manifestly careless or unfit, which is a liability for the choice rather than for the loss itself. So the question after goods disappear from a subcontracted facility is what the original custodian knew or could easily have found out about that facility. The same article also disposes of the argument that a rogue employee was acting on his own: the depositary is responsible for the negligence of his employees.

Moving goods is not the same as handing them over

A transfer between the custodian's own facilities is a change in the way the deposit is kept, not a sub-deposit, and Article 1974 governs it. He may change the way of the deposit where he may reasonably presume the depositor would consent if he knew the facts of the situation, but before doing so he must notify the depositor and wait for his decision, unless delay would cause danger. So even a defensible relocation ordinarily requires that you be told first, and the notice, or its absence, is usually the pivot of the dispute afterwards.

Why the distinction is worth pressing

Article 1979 makes the depositary liable for the loss of the thing through a fortuitous event where it is so stipulated, where he uses the thing without permission, where he delays its return, or where he allows others to use it even though he himself was authorised. A custodian who breached the rules on sub-deposit or relocation is a long way from being able to blame a flood or a fire. Ask for the storage contract, the warehouse receipt, the transfer records and the identity of every facility your goods actually passed through.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.