If a bailee is late in returning the property, does the bailee have the right to require the bailor to pay bailment fees according to the law in Vietnam? What are judgments related to this matter?

1. If a bailee is late in returning the property, does the bailee have the right to require the bailor to pay bailment fees according to the law in Vietnam?

Pursuant to Article 554 of the Civil Code 2015 of Vietnam regarding contracts for bailment of property:

"Contract for bailment of property means an agreement between parties whereby a bailee accepts the property of a bailor for safekeeping, for return to the bailor upon expiry of the duration of the contract, and the bailor must pay a fee to the bailee, except where the bailment is free of charge."

The payment of bailment fees is stipulated in Article 561 of the Civil Code 2015 as follows:

- A bailor must pay bailment fees in full when taking back the bailed property, unless otherwise agreed.

- Where the parties have no agreement on the rate of bailment fees, the applicable rate shall be the average rate of bailment fees at the time when and place where the bailment fee is paid.

- Notwithstanding that the bailor takes back the property prior to the agreed time, the bailor must pay the bailment fees in full and must pay the necessary costs which the bailee incurs due to the return of the property by the bailee prior to the agreed time, unless otherwise agreed.

- Where a bailee requests a bailor to take back the property prior to the agreed time, the bailee shall not be entitled to be paid bailment fees and must compensate for any damage to the bailor, unless otherwise agreed.

In addition, if a bailee is late in returning the property, the bailee may not require the bailor to pay bailment fees and costs for taking care of the property incurred from the agreed time for return of the property to the time it is actually returned and bears the risk with respect to the property during such period. (Article 560 of the Civil Code 2015).

Therefore, if a bailee is late in returning the property, the bailee may not require the bailor to pay bailment fees and bears the risk with respect to the property during such period.

2. What are judgments on disputes on contracts for bailment of property in Vietnam?

Below are some judgments on disputes on contracts for bailment of property in Vietnam:

Judgment 12/2021/DS-PT dated December 29, 2020, on the dispute of asset custody contract

- Adjudicating body: Bac Ninh Provincial People's Court

- Summary: In September 2018, Mr. Duong Viet C bought potato seeds from HTX Thon L. After planting and harvesting, he brought 284 kg of potato seeds to store in the cold storage of Mr. Nguyen Kim T at a storage fee of 2,400 VND/kg. On September 20, 2019, Mr. C came to Mr. T's storage to retrieve the seeds and pay the storage fee. Mr. C found all his potatoes damaged, with hard and black insides, making them unplantable. He informed Mr. T, but Mr. T did not resolve the issue. Mr. C sued, demanding Mr. T and Mrs. D compensate him for the 284 kg of damaged potato seeds at the purchase price of 4,544,000 VND and the cold storage fee of 616,000 VND.

Judgment 73/2021/DS-PT dated June 17, 2021, on the dispute of asset custody contract

- Adjudicating body: An Giang Provincial People's Court

- Summary: On March 27, 2020, Mr. Nguyen Van D went to the field and deposited 50,000,000 VND with Mrs. Nguyen Thi X. At around 10:20 AM the same day, the District C police raided Mrs. X's home, where illegal gambling was taking place. When Mr. D asked Mrs. X to return the 50,000,000 VND, she said the police raid caused her to lose track of who took the money. Mr. D sued, demanding Mrs. X return the 50,000,000 VND and did not request any other compensation.

Judgment 391/2020/DS-PT dated May 25, 2020, on the dispute of asset custody contract

- Adjudicating body: Ho Chi Minh City People's Court

- Summary: On January 7, 2017, Mr. Hoang Tran P borrowed a Yamaha Exciter motorcycle from Mr. Vu Duc T1 and went to an Internet cafe owned by NT Information Technology Co., Ltd. to play games. Mr. P left the motorcycle with the Internet cafe's staff, Mr. N1, and received a parking ticket numbered 0073967. At around 3:30 PM, he handed the ticket to the security guard to retrieve the motorcycle. However, by then, another security guard had taken over, and the motorcycle could not be found. Unable to resolve the situation, Mr. P sued, demanding NT Co., Ltd. compensate him for the lost motorcycle valued at 40,000,000 VND and reimburse him 1,500,000 VND for valuation costs.

Please Login to be able to download