Tourism Law in Europe

28 if he wishes the employer to assume full responsibility for his goods of special value and which, consequently, will require extra security on the part of the latter 60 . The above implies that the aforementioned legal regime for the voluntary deposit contract (as set out in Articles 1763 et seq .) is inapplicable here, its legal treatment being redirected to the necessary deposit provided for in the aforementioned Articles 1783 and 1784 CC, so that, in principle, it seems that the liability regime assumed by the hotelier for what the guest brings with him to the establishment, which is not brought in clandestinely and whose damage is not due to an armed robbery or an event occurring at the establishment, is not applicable here, it seems that the system of liability assumed by the hotelier for what the guest brings with him to the establishment, which is not brought in clandestinely and whose damage is not due to armed robbery or a force majeure event, is always the same, i.e. the employer will be liable because he is presumed to have custody and safekeeping, regardless of whether or not the guest delivers it directly (STS of 11 July 1989). The difference in its treatment does not refer to the employer's liability, but it is possible exoneration and its possible limitation. Certainly, if the guest contravenes the instructions given by the employer (e.g. theft by an outsider invited by the guest), the employer may exonerate his liability due to the exclusive fault of the customer (SAP of Malaga of 22 September 1998); or limiting it, either due to concurrence of faults (when, despite warnings, the object of value is not handed over and disappears from the room, following the other recommendations of the employer to ensure safety), or for keeping a certain object in the individual safe exceeding the amount after warning of the quantitative limit of the same. In cases of direct custody or deposit contract, the employer cannot limit the amount to be paid as compensation when he is liable, mainly in those cases in which a declaration of value of the goods has been made or when the goods are delivered in a closed and sealed envelope. He shall be liable in all cases of loss of such items, including fortuitous event, except for armed robbery or force majeure 61 . 60 Judgments of the Supreme Court of 11 July 1989 and 15 March 1990, op . cit . 61 Judgments of the SC of 11 July 1989, and 27 January 1994, op . cit .