Sellers and suppliers of movable assets can solve problems caused by customers who pay poorly due to a retention of title clause. This clause makes it possible to establish contractually that the ownership of a given material will not be called into question until the acquisition of third parties has paid the full price. Interestingly, the new right of pledge has created a better legal framework for the retention-of-title clause, which puts each creditor in a stronger position, provided that a retention-of-title clause has been included. Although the idea behind red clauses is very simple, they are becoming more and more widespread. This has led to cases where such clauses have been redefined in order to create a burden on the goods rather than retain ownership. When a tax is levied, the buyer takes legal ownership of the goods, but the seller reserves the right to confiscate the goods and, as a rule, sell them to settle the buyer`s debts. The acquisition of a business in the administration or assets of such a business can very often be a good value for the acquirer; who can pay a significantly lower price than a solvent business takeover. However, if the goods or some of them are subject to a retention of title clause, the buyer does not receive ownership and must deliver to the original supplier. It is not necessary to specify that the entry of a retention-of-title clause in the register of instructions offers additional protection.
2. How has the retention of title been settled so far? A retention of title clause (RED) is a provision of a contract for the sale of goods, which means that the seller retains legal ownership of the goods until certain obligations are fulfilled by the buyer – usually the payment of the purchase price. This guide deals with red clauses, including the relationship between these clauses and the unlawful act of transformation (see below). . . .