Sale with right of repurchase is an ancient legal mechanism, often misunderstood, which offers remarkable flexibility for certain asset or financial transactions. Although it has been governed by the Civil Code for more than two centuries, its exact nature and implications are often the subject of confusion, even though it clearly differs from other arrangements. Understanding its precise legal status is essential if you are to grasp its scope and use it safely. For an overview, please consult the complete guide to repurchase agreementswhich provides an overview of the operation.
Understanding the legal definition of a sale with right of repurchase
At the heart of the definition of a sale with right of redemption is article 1659 of the Civil Code. This founding text states that : "The repurchase option is an agreement by which the seller reserves the right to take back the thing sold, in return for restitution of the principal price and the repayment referred to in article 1673.. The term "réméré" itself, derived from the Latin redimeremeans "to buy back". It therefore basically refers to the seller's right to buy back.
In practice, the word "réméré" is used in a strict sense to refer to the act of repurchase, but also in a broader sense to describe the entire contractual transaction. It is a complete contract of sale that includes, from the outset, a specific clause allowing the seller to regain ownership of the property within a period that cannot legally exceed five years.
Sale with right of repurchase, an option for the seller
The central point of this mechanism is the optional nature of the trade-in for the seller. The law confers on the seller an "option", i.e. a right that he is free to exercise or not. There is no obligation to buy back the property. The buyer, on the other hand, is obliged to accept this decision and cannot oppose the return if the seller exercises his right under the conditions set out in the contract and by law.
This asymmetry is the very essence of repurchase agreements. For the seller, it is a strategic instrument that enables him to generate cash while reserving the possibility of recovering an important asset. For the buyer, the transaction involves a risk: he is the owner, but under the threat of the sale being rescinded.
The nature of a sale subject to a resolutory condition
Case law has long since clarified the legal nature of a sale with right of redemption. It is not a question of two successive sales (an initial sale and then a resale), but of a single sale concluded under a resolutory condition. What does this mean in practice? A condition is said to be "resolutory" when its fulfilment results in the retroactive annulment of the contract.
In the case of repurchase agreements, the event that constitutes the condition is the seller's exercise of his right to repurchase. This is a special case of a so-called "potestative" condition, as its fulfilment depends solely on the will of one of the parties. Normally, such conditions are null and void, but the law expressly authorises them in the case of repurchase agreements. When the seller activates this clause, the sale is deemed never to have existed.
The legal consequences of the nature of the repurchase agreement
Calling a sale with right of redemption a sale subject to a resolutory condition is not just a theoretical subtlety. Its legal nature has decisive practical consequences for the parties and for third parties. To find out more about these aspects, you can explore the conditions and effects of the sale with right of repurchase legal regime.
The 'ab initio' effect and its practical implications
The most spectacular consequence of the exercise of the right of repurchase is its retroactive effect, or effect ab initio (from the beginning). Rescission of the sale restores the parties to the exact state they were in before the contract was signed. The seller is deemed never to have ceased to own the property. The buyer is deemed never to have been the owner.
From a tax point of view, this retroactivity has a direct impact. For example, if a capital gain was recorded at the time of the initial sale, the exercise of the repurchase option during the same tax year cancels out this capital gain. If the repurchase takes place in a subsequent financial year, tax neutralisation mechanisms can be used to offset the gain initially declared. Legally, the seller takes back the property free of any encumbrances or mortgages that the buyer may have set up, subject to publication of the deed of repurchase.
Changes in intermediation and concentration requirements
The special legal nature of the sale with right of repurchase has had historic consequences for the financial markets. Before the major modernisation laws, transactions in financial securities often had to be conducted through approved intermediaries (brokerage firms) and centralised on the market. However, there were exceptions for so-called "complex" agreements, which were not "outright sales".
Sale with right of redemption, as a sale subject to a resolutory condition, fell into this category. For years, it enabled operators to make temporary transfers of securities outside the market, escaping the monopolies and associated brokerage fees. Although the laws have changed and these concentration requirements have been abolished, this history partly explains the boom in the use of repurchase agreements as a financing and cash management tool in the 1980s and 1990s.
Distinction between sale with right of repurchase and similar agreements
Sale with right of redemption is often confused with other financial transactions involving the temporary transfer of ownership or cash. However, the legal differences are fundamental and have radically different consequences. It is essential not to confuse them if you are to choose the right tool for the right purpose.
Sale with right of repurchase and tied transaction: what are the differences?
Tying, sometimes referred to as "stock market repurchase agreements", was a market practice that involved combining a cash sale with a forward sale commitment. The main difference lies in the nature of the settlement. In a linked transaction, the securities are returned to the original seller by means of a second transfer, a true resale. There are therefore two separate transfers of ownership.
Conversely, as we have seen, the exercise of the repurchase option cancels the initial sale with retroactive effect. There is no second sale, but the first is cancelled. The legal and tax consequences, particularly in terms of transfer taxes and recognition of capital gains, are therefore very different.
Sale and repurchase agreements: a different approach to temporary transfers
Repurchase agreements, which are widely used on the financial markets today, differ from repurchase agreements in the nature of the commitment made by the parties. The French Monetary and Financial Code defines a repurchase agreement as a combination of a cash sale and a reciprocal, irrevocable commitment to resell at a future date. Both parties are obliged: the initial seller must repurchase, and the initial buyer must resell.
The major difference is that a repurchase agreement creates a definite bilateral obligation, whereas a repurchase agreement creates a unilateral option for the seller. The outcome is therefore certain in the case of a repurchase agreement (unless one of the parties defaults), whereas it is uncertain in the case of a repurchase agreement, as it depends solely on the seller's decision.
Sale with right of repurchase and securities lending: clarification of legal regimes
Finally, a distinction must be made between a sale with right of repurchase and a securities loan. The latter is a consumer loan contract governed by the Civil Code. It relates to fungible, i.e. interchangeable, items such as financial securities. The borrower becomes the owner of the securities loaned, on condition that on maturity he returns not the same securities, but securities of the same type and quantity.
The legal nature here is completely different. A repurchase agreement is a sale in which the transfer of ownership is conditional. Securities lending is a loan, which transfers ownership in return for an obligation to return equivalent goods. There is no sale price in a loan, but a remuneration for the lender. The legal and tax regimes for these two transactions are therefore completely different.
The legal nature of sale with right of redemption, as a sale subject to a resolutory condition, gives it a unique place among asset and financial management tools. Its flexibility, embodied in the unilateral right of repurchase, offers strategic opportunities, but its implementation requires precise contractual drafting to avoid any risk of requalification. To help you draft and secure your repurchase agreements, you can call on our expert lawyers in banking and financial law.
Sources
- Civil Code, articles 1659 to 1673
- Monetary and Financial Code
EN 
FR