What is the retention of title clause?

The retention of title clause can guarantee you the recovery of the property that has not been paid by your debtor. Indeed, when selling an item, the parties accept the principle that the item sold will not be the full property of the buyer until it has been paid in full.

This clause is a strong security and is a sale under suspensive conditions. The agreement allows the seller who would not be paid on the due date to exercise an action in revendication on the goods and merchandise which would have remained in the hands of the buyer but also to exercise what is called an action on the sale price in the hands of the sub-purchasers in case of sales of the goods and/or merchandise.

The principles to be respected

A certain number of principles must be respected in order to be able to claim the implementation of the retention of title clause concerning its existence between the parties.

The fact that in regular and recurrent contractual relationships, invoices include the mention that the goods and/or merchandise are subject to this clause, without the buyer having made any protest, can help you establish the existence of the clause between the parties.

If you are undergoing a judicial liquidation, you can benefit from a strong security that you could implement with the Trustee. The retention of title clause is opposable to the creditors in case it has been validly registered outside the suspect period. It is also to note a small subtlety of right relating to the movable goods which are in located in a house with dwelling use or of a room with commercial use.

If there are unpaid rents and the tenant has acquired movable property or equipment, there is a conflict between the lessor who claims the payment of his rents by availing himself of the privileges instituted for his benefit by article 2332-1 of the Civil Code and the seller of movable property and equipment who could avail himself of a property right.

This situation has been definitively resolved: "the special privilege of the lessor of real estate takes precedence over the right of ownership enjoyed by the seller of furniture.

In sum, this principle may not apply if the lessor knows the origin of the furniture and equipment when it is brought into the leased premises. It It is important to consider the question of goods when they have been lost, stolen and/or destroyed while in the purchaser's custody. Finally, theFinally, the jurisprudence is now clear and renders the purchaser not responsible if before and during the occurrence of a loss he has adopted a behaviour in the custody of the goods and/or materials that he has acquired.