Opinion ID: 789821
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Central's inventory-return claims

Text: 10 Although the Alliance Agreement terminated at the end of September of 1999, Central continued to distribute Scotts's products in the period between October 1, 1999 and September 30, 2000 (Program Year 2000). According to Central, the distribution was allegedly regulated by an Oral Agency Agreement, under which 11 the parties agreed that Central would serve as Scotts'[s] distribution agent for certain customers and certain products during the 2000 Program Year.... Scotts agreed to pay Central agency compensation in exchange for Central's distribution and delivery of Scotts'[s] products to customers during the 2000 Program Year. 12 Central claimed that, during Program Year 2000, it had accumulated an excess inventory of Scotts's lawn, garden, and horticulture products, as well as Ortho and RoundUp products. According to Central, the Oral Agency Agreement gave it two options with regard to the excess inventory: (1) Central could return the inventory to Scotts and get a refund, or (2) it could keep the inventory for distribution the following year. The district court correctly found that the second option was not feasible since Scotts had notified Central that it would not enter into any future distribution agreement at the end of Program Year 2000. Central claims that it attempted to return the inventory, but that Scotts refused. 13 In its counterclaim, Central contended that Scotts had breached the Oral Agency Agreement by refusing to take back the Scotts, Ortho, and RoundUp inventory. But Central did not formally tender this excess inventory back to Scotts until the filing of its counterclaim. 14 Central also contends that it had attempted to return certain Miracle Gro products to Scotts during Program Year 1999. This claim was treated separately from the Program Year 2000 claims.