ContractRisk.io
Manufacturing & Supply AgreementSample review

7.7

/ 10 risk

Manufacturing & Supply Agreement

Buyer ↔ Apex Manufacturing Co. · Governing law: United States

⚖️ Verdict: High risk — renegotiate before signingLeans: Favors the supplier (Apex)

A supply contract that bills you for shortfalls the supplier itself causes, makes you indemnify its own manufacturing defects, and bars you from sourcing elsewhere when it cannot deliver. The continuity risk here is severe.

9

Clauses analyzed

5

High risk

4

Need review

0

Accepted

↓ Download PDF↓ Download WordAll samplesScan your own — free →

Where to focus

Your top negotiation priorities

The flagged clauses ranked by how much they matter. Tackle these first — tap any one to jump to the full breakdown and the suggested safer rewrite.

1

Take-or-Pay Minimum, Even on Supplier Failure

Purchase CommitmentHIGH RISK

A take-or-pay that survives the supplier's own non-performance is a critical imbalance. At minimum, exclude shortfalls caused by Apex, by force majeure, and by documented demand declines, and convert the minimum to a good-faith target or a reduced liquidated amount.

Jump →
2

One-Sided Product-Liability & Recall Indemnity

IndemnificationHIGH RISK

Manufacturing and design-defect risk should sit with the manufacturer. This clause inverts that and is among the most dangerous terms in the agreement. Make the indemnity fault-based and reciprocal, and require Apex to carry product-liability insurance naming the Buyer.

Jump →
3

Exclusive Supply Even When Supplier Can't Deliver

SupplyHIGH RISK

Exclusivity without a failure-to-supply release is a serious continuity risk. Add the right to procure from third parties (with the shortfall not counting against the minimum) whenever Apex cannot meet requirements, and consider a second-source/escrow arrangement.

Jump →

Shared contract report

Clause risk overview

Enterprise-grade contract risk intelligence.

Scan your own contract — free →

Overall risk

HIGH RISKScore: 7.7/109 clauses
High: 5Medium: 4Accepted: 0

Benchmark delta

+2.7

Industry benchmark

5/10

Compound risks

1

Heatmap high

5

Cluster of high-risk clauses

Risk heatmap

High
56%
Medium
44%
Accepted
0%

Take-or-Pay Minimum, Even on Supplier Failure

Purchase CommitmentScore 9/10Priority 10/10
HIGH RISK
SeverityOverall 9/10
Financial
10.0
Legal
8.0
Ops
7.0
FinancialOperational
  • The Buyer must pay for any shortfall below the annual minimum 'as if ordered and delivered' — a take-or-pay obligation that applies regardless of the reason, expressly including reduced demand AND Apex's own failure to deliver.
  • Paying for the supplier's failures is fundamentally backwards.
Risk insight: A take-or-pay that survives the supplier's own non-performance is a critical imbalance. At minimum, exclude shortfalls caused by Apex, by force majeure, and by documented demand declines, and convert the minimum to a good-faith target or a reduced liquidated amount.
Safer rewrite: The Minimum Commitment shall be reduced by volumes Apex fails to supply, by force-majeure-affected volumes, and by documented reductions in the Buyer's end-market demand. Any shortfall payment shall be a reasonable, capped liquidated amount reflecting Apex's lost margin (not full price).
Law ref: UCC §2-306 (requirements/output contracts; good faith); liquidated-damages doctrine
Worst case: Apex misses deliveries, the Buyer loses sales, and the Buyer is still billed the full minimum for product it never received.

One-Sided Product-Liability & Recall Indemnity

IndemnificationScore 10/10Priority 10/10
HIGH RISK
SeverityOverall 10/10
Financial
10.0
Legal
10.0
Ops
6.0
LegalFinancial
  • The Buyer must indemnify Apex for all product-liability claims and the entire cost of any recall — even where the defect arose from Apex's own manufacturing, design, or materials — unless 'solely' Apex's willful misconduct is finally adjudicated.
  • This puts manufacturing-defect risk on the party that didn't make the product.
Risk insight: Manufacturing and design-defect risk should sit with the manufacturer. This clause inverts that and is among the most dangerous terms in the agreement. Make the indemnity fault-based and reciprocal, and require Apex to carry product-liability insurance naming the Buyer.
Safer rewrite: Apex shall indemnify the Buyer for product-liability and recall costs to the extent arising from manufacturing defects, defective materials, or Apex's design contribution or breach of specifications. The Buyer shall indemnify Apex only for claims arising from the Buyer's specifications, instructions, or post-delivery handling. Apex shall maintain product-liability insurance of at least USD $[X] naming the Buyer as additional insured.
Law ref: Strict products liability, Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§1–2
Worst case: A manufacturing defect causes injuries and a nationwide recall; the Buyer must fund both the recall and the litigation despite Apex having made the defective product.

Exclusive Supply Even When Supplier Can't Deliver

SupplyScore 9/10Priority 10/10
HIGH RISK
SeverityOverall 9/10
Financial
9.0
Legal
8.0
Ops
9.0
OperationalFinancialLegal

The Buyer must buy 100% of its requirements from Apex and is barred from making the Products itself or sourcing elsewhere — 'even if Apex is unable to supply.' This is a single-source lock-in with no safety valve for shortages.

Risk insight: Exclusivity without a failure-to-supply release is a serious continuity risk. Add the right to procure from third parties (with the shortfall not counting against the minimum) whenever Apex cannot meet requirements, and consider a second-source/escrow arrangement.
Safer rewrite: If Apex fails to supply the Buyer's requirements in full and on time, the Buyer may procure the shortfall from third parties or manufacture it, such volumes shall not count toward the Minimum Commitment, and the cost difference shall be charged to Apex as cover damages under UCC §2-712.
Law ref: UCC §2-712 (cover); exclusive-dealing analysis under antitrust law
Worst case: Apex has a plant outage; the Buyer's production line stops because it is contractually forbidden from buying the part anywhere else.

Liability Cap Excludes Supply Failure & Defects

LiabilityScore 8/10Priority 10/10
HIGH RISK
SeverityOverall 8/10
Financial
9.0
Legal
8.0
Ops
7.0
FinancialLegalOperational
  • Apex excludes all consequential damages (including cost of cover and lost profits) and caps liability at the price of the specific Products — and applies this even to its failure to supply and to defective Products.
  • This guts the Buyer's core remedies.
Risk insight: Excluding cover damages for non-delivery removes the Buyer's main protection in a supply contract. Carve supply failure, defects, and recall/PL out of the cap and preserve cover damages under UCC §2-712.
Safer rewrite: The limitation of liability shall not apply to Apex's failure to supply (the Buyer retains its cover remedy under UCC §2-712), to defective Products, to recall and product-liability obligations, or to Apex's indemnity, confidentiality, or willful-misconduct obligations. Apex's liability for these shall be subject to a separate, elevated cap.
Law ref: UCC §2-719 (limitation of remedies; failure of essential purpose)
Worst case: Apex fails to deliver, the Buyer pays far more to source elsewhere and loses customers, yet recovery is capped at the price of the missing units.

Unilateral, Uncapped Price Increases

PricingScore 8/10Priority 9/10
HIGH RISK
SeverityOverall 8/10
Financial
9.0
Legal
6.0
Ops
6.0
Financial
  • Apex may raise prices on 30 days' notice for any cost change 'in Apex's reasonable determination,' with no cap, and the Buyer's only 'remedy' is to keep paying.
  • Combined with exclusivity and the minimum, the Buyer cannot escape an increase.
Risk insight: Uncapped, unilateral price increases with no exit are unworkable in a long exclusive deal. Tie increases to a published index, cap annual increases, require cost documentation, and give the Buyer a right to terminate or source elsewhere if an increase exceeds a threshold.
Safer rewrite: Prices are fixed for each contract year. Adjustments shall be limited to documented raw-material changes per an agreed index, capped at [X]% per year, and shall be passed through symmetrically (decreases as well as increases). Increases above the cap give the Buyer the right to reject orders, source elsewhere, or terminate without penalty.
Worst case: Apex raises prices repeatedly; the locked-in Buyer must absorb every increase with no alternative.

5-Day Acceptance & Latent-Defect Disclaimer

QualityScore 6/10Priority 8/10
NEEDS REVIEW
SeverityOverall 6/10
Financial
6.0
Legal
7.0
Ops
7.0
OperationalLegal
  • Products are deemed irrevocably accepted if not rejected within 5 days, with all latent-defect liability disclaimed and remedies limited to replacement or credit.
  • Many defects only surface in use or downstream, well after 5 days.
Risk insight: Preserve rights for latent defects and a reasonable revocation period. Extend the inspection window and ensure the limited remedy doesn't fail of its essential purpose.
Safer rewrite: The Buyer may reject within 30 days of delivery and may revoke acceptance for latent defects within a reasonable time after discovery. Apex warrants the Products against defects for [12] months, and if replacement/credit fails to cure, the Buyer may pursue all UCC remedies.
Law ref: UCC §2-608 (revocation of acceptance); §2-719(2)

One-Sided Force Majeure (Buyer Still Bound)

Force MajeureScore 6/10Priority 8/10
NEEDS REVIEW
SeverityOverall 6/10
Financial
6.0
Legal
7.0
Ops
7.0
OperationalLegal
  • Apex's force-majeure excuse is broad (even 'increased costs' and 'changes in market conditions'), yet during such events the Buyer's exclusivity and minimum obligations continue while Apex's supply duty is suspended.
  • The risk is entirely one-directional.
Risk insight: Force majeure should excuse both sides and free the Buyer to source elsewhere. Remove 'cost increases/market conditions' as triggers, suspend the Buyer's minimum/exclusivity during the event, and add a termination right for prolonged events.
Safer rewrite: During a force-majeure event affecting Apex, the Buyer's exclusivity and Minimum Commitment are suspended and the Buyer may procure elsewhere. Increased costs and ordinary market changes are not force majeure. Either party may terminate if the event continues beyond 60 days.

5-Year Lock-In, No Convenience Exit, Buy-Back

Term & TerminationScore 6/10Priority 8/10
NEEDS REVIEW
SeverityOverall 6/10
Financial
7.0
Legal
6.0
Ops
6.0
FinancialOperational
  • A 5-year term auto-renews for 3-year periods (12-month non-renewal notice), neither party can terminate for convenience, and on any termination the Buyer must purchase all of Apex's forecast-based inventory.
  • The exit costs are significant.
Risk insight: Long lock-in with a broad buy-back is acceptable only with guardrails. Add a termination-for-cause right, cap the buy-back to reasonable, non-cancelable raw materials tied to binding forecasts, and shorten the renewal/notice periods.
Safer rewrite: Reduce renewals to 1 year with 90 days' notice; add a right to terminate for material uncured breach or repeated supply failures. Limit the buy-back to raw materials and WIP procured against the binding (90-day) forecast, at cost, and exclude finished goods the Buyer did not order.

Buyer-Funded Tooling Held by Supplier; Apex Owns Know-How

Intellectual PropertyScore 6/10Priority 9/10
NEEDS REVIEW
SeverityOverall 6/10
Financial
6.0
Legal
7.0
Ops
6.0
LegalOperationalFinancial
  • Tooling the Buyer pays for stays in Apex's possession with a lien securing all amounts owed, and any process improvements or know-how belong solely to Apex.
  • This deepens single-source dependency and limits the Buyer's ability to transition suppliers.
Risk insight: If the Buyer funds the tooling, it should own it and be able to retrieve it. Confirm Buyer ownership, limit or remove the lien, and ensure improvements specific to the Buyer's Products are licensed to the Buyer or jointly owned.
Safer rewrite: Buyer-funded tooling is the Buyer's property, clearly marked, removable on reasonable notice, and free of any lien for unrelated amounts. Apex grants the Buyer a perpetual, transferable license to manufacturing know-how and improvements necessary to produce the Products (including at an alternate supplier).
Law ref: UCC Article 9 (liens); work-for-hire / IP assignment principles

Want this for your own contracts?

Get the full clause-by-clause breakdown, suggested rewrites, law references, and a redlined Word doc — free to start.

Start free →