noomxx,there is certainly no love lost between Franklins and...

noomxx,there is certainly no love lost between Franklins and Metcash,in all fairness that article should have put Metcash position on Franklins judgement.

From media release by Metcash 17/12/2009

"Metcash clarifies position regarding Franklins judgment.

Metcash wishes to clarify and correct media articles that have arisen from the decision by the NSW Court of Appeal regarding a contractual dispute between the company and Franklins.

The parties entered into a Supply Agreement in 2001 which was based on Metcashs standard wholesale trading term arrangements. These terms were listed and transferred to a laminated list used by Metcash and Franklins buyers to manage the trading terms relationship between the parties and suppliers.

The key issue in the dispute related to Metcashs right to retain certain discounts and allowances negotiated with suppliers.
The Court ordered that the Supply Agreement be rectified, consistent with the laminated list, to specifically state that the following discounts and allowances were to be retained by Metcash and not passed to Franklins;

any allowance or discount that is;
(a)
A direct
(b)
Cross docking
(c)
Early payment discount
(d)
Centralisation / redistribution allowance; or
(e)
Slow moving rebate

This means the Supply Agreement is consistent with the manner in which Metcash conducted the trading relationship with Franklins.

Throughout the term of the agreement, Metcashs charges to Franklins were audited by Ernst & Young to ensure that Franklins were receiving all discounts and allowances to which they were entitled. No issues emerged from these audits.

Metcash is firmly of the view that there will be no material financial consequences arising from the decision "