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.) through the years. 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 examination and rejection legal rights.

Virtually almost any contract where commercial items are changing arms provides receiver the best 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 lands upon that the receiver can reject items. Disputes can appear during settlement around whether or perhaps not rejection is permitted for items that are discretionary. As an example, a recipient might want the best to reject items 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 examination 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 principles, which means that the principles should be considered whenever negotiating a contract in order to avoid disputes. What happens, for example, if a contract does not allow goods to be rejected based on non-compliance with labeling requirements, and the recipient wants to reject goods that have non-compliant labels? The clear answer just isn’t constantly clear also it’s good to comprehend this while drafting.Moving beyond simply the agreement, inspections are essential 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 in many cases are glossed over in agreement negotiations. Specifically for purchasers, the clauses are essential. Keep tuned in to your Canna Law weblog once we discuss extra problems with supply string agreements in the* that is( industry. Until then, for lots more on (*) supply string agreements, browse the following:(*)Re-published with all the authorization of Harris Bricken while the Canna Law Blog(*)

Latest posts