California Cannabis provide Chain Contracts: Inspection and Rejection

By Griffen Thorne, Attorney at Harris Bricken

Our cannabis company lawyers have actually drafted numerous cannabis supply chain agreements (such as for example circulation agreements, licensing agreements, etc.) over time. Generally speaking, supply string cannabis contracts proceed with the format that is same the same nuanced provisions seem to pop up time and time again (I wrote about some of them previously in the context of tri-party supply chain agreements here). One provision that is such assessment and rejection legal rights.

Virtually any type of contract where commercial items are changing fingers provides receiver the proper to examine items and reject them for many issues that are non-conformance. The negotiating point that is biggest for these clauses are usually (1) just how long that inspection duration is, and (2) the causes upon that your receiver can reject the products. Disputes can appear during settlement around whether or perhaps not rejection is permitted for items that are discretionary. As an example, a recipient might prefer the proper to reject products that it can’t sell them if it determines for some reason. It goes without saying, but the recipient almost always wants more time and broader rejection rights, where the seller usually wants rejection that is short and extremely narrowly defined rejection liberties.

This just isn’t unique to cannabis. Any moment a contract has assessment and rejection durations, these presssing issues come up. What makes them unique for cannabis is that the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) imposes inspection that is additional rejection liberties on its licensees. Those are the license types where this usually comes up (the circumstances in which cultivators, for example, receive cannabis products are very limited).cannabisAccording while the rules only apply to BCC licensees, such as distributors and retailers Thecannabis goods not comply with labeling requirements, or the goods exceed their expiration date to the BCC, recipients of goods are obligated to reject partial or entire shipments of goods if the shipment differs from the goods on a sales invoice or receipt, contains goods that were damaged during transportation. Presumably, the BCC would would also like recipients to otherwise reject goods that fail to comply with applicable requirements such as not having passed testing. It’s basically implied from the BCC’s rule that this inspection should be done upon receipt of the goods.This is all important because some sellers may try to negotiate for very rejection that is narrow that contradict the guidelines, meaning the guidelines should be considered whenever negotiating a contract in order to avoid disputes. What are the results, for instance, if a contract will not enable products to be refused predicated on non-compliance with labeling demands, and also the receiver desires to reject products which have non-compliant labels? The clear answer just isn’t constantly clear also it’s good to know this while drafting.Moving beyond simply the agreement, inspections are very important for practical reasons. As soon as a licensee has accepted a* that is( good, its ability to return those goods is severely constrained. The BCC only allows B2B returns for defective manufactured goods and only upon completing exchanges that are certain. The BCC does not“defective” define what means, but it cannabisarguablycannabis includes the things mentioned above for


goods, such as being damaged or improperly labeled. However, it does not include being unsatisfied with goods or flower goods in any case. That’s just one of the reason inspections that are thorough essential.(*)Inspection and rejection clauses tend to be glossed over in agreement negotiations. Specifically for purchasers, the clauses are very important. Stay tuned in to your Canna Law weblog once we discuss extra difficulties with supply string agreements in the* that is( industry. Until then, to get more on (*) supply string agreements, read the following:(*)Re-published utilizing the authorization of Harris Bricken as well as the Canna Law Blog(*)

Latest posts