Here is the shape of almost every supply relationship, and of almost every argument that comes out of one. An agreement is signed once. Somebody reads it, negotiates a few clauses, and files it. The buying then happens every week, on orders written by people who are busy, using a format nobody has looked at in years, carrying terms nobody compared with the agreement. Two layers, drifting apart from the day the first order goes out — and the dispute, when it comes, is almost always in the gap between them. Which produces the single most useful sentence a vendor agreement can contain and the one most of them are missing: which document wins when the two say different things. Decide it deliberately, say it in both places, and describe how a genuine variation is agreed. That one line prevents more trouble than any amount of careful drafting elsewhere. The second idea worth carrying is about what the document is actually for. It is not about the goods; you and your supplier agree about the goods, which is why you are doing business at all. It is about the day the delivery is late, short, wrong, damaged, or simply stops. The purchase is the easy part and it needs very little paper. The agreement exists for the other days, and it should be read as a set of answers to questions that have not arisen yet — who bears a loss in transit, how long you have to reject, who collects what you rejected, what happens to the tooling you paid for, and what each side may do on the last day of the relationship.
Worth separating clearly, because businesses frequently have one and assume it is doing the work of both.
An order answers four questions: what, how much, by when, at what price. It is transactional by design and it should stay short, because the people writing it are buying rather than negotiating.
An agreement answers the questions that survive the order: who bears a loss, how long you have to object, what a defect entitles you to, who owns the tooling, what happens if supply stops, and how either side gets out.
Put another way, the order is about this consignment and the agreement is about the relationship. Trying to make one do the other’s job produces either a four-page order nobody reads or an agreement that has to be renegotiated every time you buy something.
Which is why the right output of this exercise is usually two documents rather than one: a framework that lasts a year or three, and a short order format carrying only what changes.
Design them together and most of the classic problems disappear before they start.
The framework holds everything stable: definitions, quality, acceptance, warranty, liability, confidentiality, tooling, termination, exit, notices and dispute handling. It is signed once and it is long.
The order holds only the variables: item, quantity, specification reference, price, delivery date and delivery point — plus one line saying it is placed under the framework agreement, identified by date.
The discipline is that the order carries no standing terms of its own. The moment a purchase order format starts printing its own conditions, you have two agreements, and at some point they will disagree.
The same applies in reverse to whatever your supplier sends back. An acknowledgement that restates conditions is a second document, and it should be answered rather than filed.
Where buying happens against a longer commitment — a quantity over a year, drawn down as needed — say so, and say what the commitment is on each side. A framework that implies volume and promises none is a common source of bad feeling.
One line, and it is missing from most agreements we are asked to look at.
It should say that the agreement prevails over any order, acknowledgement, quotation or other document, and that it can be varied only in writing signed by both sides.
Then put a matching line on the order format: that the order is placed under the agreement, and that nothing on it varies the agreement unless agreed separately.
Two people can now disagree about what was supplied and they cannot disagree about which document decides. That is worth more than any number of carefully drafted clauses further down.
And define what counts as a variation. An email between two people who deal with each other daily is either enough or it is not, and it is much better to decide which in advance than to argue about it afterwards.
They arrive on the quotation, on the acknowledgement, on the delivery note and on the back of the invoice, and they are rarely read by anybody.
The tangle is well known: each side sends its own terms, neither reads the other’s, goods are delivered and paid for, and afterwards both claim their own conditions governed. Untangling it later turns on details of exactly what was sent, when, and what each side then did.
The way out is not to win that argument. It is to make it impossible: a signed agreement stating that no other terms apply, and a practice of responding when a supplier’s document asserts otherwise instead of quietly accepting it.
So train the habit rather than only drafting the clause. When an acknowledgement comes back with conditions attached, a one-line reply that the order stands under the agreement, and that the attached conditions do not apply, takes ten seconds and settles the matter.
And check your own documents while you are at it. A buyer whose order carries three inches of small print is arguing the other side of the same problem.
The clause that decides whether acceptance is a test or a conversation.
There are four ways to describe goods and they frequently coexist: a specification, a sample, a drawing, and a standard. Each is legitimate and they are not always consistent with each other.
So say which governs, in what order, and what happens where they conflict. A specification that says one thing and an approved sample that shows another is an argument nobody can win on the merits.
Keep the description out of the body of the agreement and into an annexure that can be updated without reopening the whole document. Then keep the annexures versioned and dated, because “the current specification” means nothing three revisions later.
And write the description for somebody who was not in the room. The test is whether a new quality inspector could apply it without ringing the person who negotiated it.
Small, dull, and renegotiated on almost every consignment in businesses that never wrote it down.
Decide three things once. What tolerance is acceptable, if any. What happens outside it — may you reject the whole, may you accept part, does the shortfall have to be made good and by when. And whether you are obliged to accept and pay for an over-delivery, which most buyers assume they are not and most agreements never address.
Also settle whether part deliveries are permitted at all, because a supplier sending half now and half later may be solving their problem and creating yours — particularly where you are paying freight each time.
Where goods are ordered against a production plan, say what a shortfall entitles you to beyond a credit note. A credit for goods that did not arrive does not restart a line that stopped.
None of this needs to be adversarial. It needs to be written down once, so that a lorry arriving light is an administrative event rather than a negotiation.
The clause that matters on the day something arrives broken.
Four things belong in it. Where delivery happens. Who arranges and pays for transport. Who insures the goods in transit. And at what moment risk passes from the supplier to you.
Those four are separate questions and businesses routinely assume they travel together. They do not: a supplier can arrange transport at your cost with risk passing at their gate, and that is a perfectly ordinary arrangement provided everybody knows it is the arrangement.
Add the practical part: what your people must do on receipt if a consignment looks damaged, within what time, and to whom it must be reported. A damage claim is usually lost at the gate rather than in the contract.
And say who is responsible for unloading and for any equipment needed to do it, because that is a real cost and a real safety question and it is left out of most agreements.
Handled carelessly in most agreements, in both directions.
Sometimes a date is genuinely critical — an event, a shipment, a production start. Sometimes it is a preference. Treating both the same way produces either a document that threatens consequences nobody will impose, or one that gives you no answer when a date really was the point.
So distinguish them. Where a date is essential, say that it is, say what happens if it is missed, and mean it. Where it is not, provide a proportionate remedy — notice, a chance to cure, a right to buy elsewhere and recover the difference.
That last one is more useful than it sounds and is rarely drafted: a stated right, after notice, to source the goods from somebody else and charge the supplier the excess. It is a remedy that actually solves the buyer’s problem, which most remedies do not.
Also deal with events genuinely outside anybody’s control, plainly and briefly: what counts, what notice is required, what happens if it goes on too long, and that it suspends obligations rather than deleting them.
Unglamorous, cheap to specify, and responsible for a steady drip of avoidable cost.
Packing is part of the specification rather than an afterthought. Say what protection is required, whether packaging is returnable, and who bears the cost either way. Returnable crates that nobody agreed to return are a recurring argument in businesses that buy by the pallet.
Labelling decides how fast a consignment moves through your gate. Order number, item code, quantity, batch, and anything your own process needs — stated once in the agreement, repeated on every order, and checked on arrival.
The documents that travel with the goods matter as much as the goods. Say what must accompany a delivery: the delivery note referencing the order, test or inspection certificates where they apply, batch records, warranty documents, and any manual or instruction.
A consignment arriving without its certificate is a consignment that cannot be released into production, which makes it a late delivery even though the lorry came on time. Saying that plainly, in the agreement, is usually enough to fix it permanently.
And say what happens if the documents are missing or wrong — whether the inspection clock starts anyway, and whether payment terms run from the delivery or from the complete delivery. Those are two different dates and only one of them is in most agreements.
The mechanism that decides whether a problem found later is your problem.
Set out: when the inspection period starts — arrival, unpacking, or first use; how long it runs; what you must do to reject, and in what form; and what happens if you say nothing.
Deemed acceptance after silence is ordinary and it is only fair if the window is realistic. Set it against what your goods inwards process actually does, including on a holiday week, rather than against a number that sounded reasonable in a meeting.
Deal separately with defects that could not reasonably have been found on inspection. Goods accepted at the gate and discovered faulty in assembly are the commonest real-world case and the one most agreements handle badly.
And be clear that accepting a consignment is not a waiver of the warranty. Otherwise a supplier will eventually argue that it was.
Left out of most agreements and responsible for a surprising amount of mess.
Four questions. Who collects them, by when, at whose cost, and what you may do if nobody comes — charge storage, return at their cost, or after notice dispose of them.
Then the money: replacement or credit, at whose option, and whether you may withhold payment on the rejected part while paying the rest.
Also say who owns rejected goods in the meantime and who insures them, because a pallet of somebody else’s rejected stock sitting in your warehouse is a liability nobody has thought about.
This whole section is six lines of drafting and it prevents the scene every purchasing department recognises: a corner of the warehouse with stock nobody will collect and an invoice nobody will cancel.
Where comparable-looking quotations turn out not to be comparable.
State what the price includes: packing, freight, insurance, loading, unloading, and anything else that costs money between their factory and your floor. Two suppliers quoting the same figure can differ meaningfully on those alone.
Then say whether the price is fixed and for how long. Fixed for a stated period is the usual compromise, and it is honest.
Where revision is permitted, the clause should say on what basis it may change, with what notice, and what you may do if you do not accept it — which is usually a right to end the arrangement without penalty. A revision clause with no exit is a one-sided clause.
On taxes, say only that the price is exclusive or inclusive, and leave the rest to your own adviser. This page gives no tax advice and a template that pretends to is doing you no favours.
Most late payments are not refusals. They are invoices stuck in a query pile, and the agreement can prevent that.
Decide when the clock starts — invoice date, delivery date or acceptance date. Those are three different moments and the choice between them is a commercial decision, not a formality.
Then say what makes an invoice valid: the order number, the correct legal name and details of both parties, the delivery reference, and the documents that must accompany it. An invoice that cannot be matched to an order is an invoice that waits.
Say where invoices go, and to whom, because an invoice emailed to somebody who left is the single commonest cause of a supplier believing they are being ignored.
Where a smaller supplier is involved, there is a framework about timely payment that applies regardless of what your agreement says — our freelance agreement guide sets it out properly, and it is worth reading before you settle terms.
And where payment genuinely has not been made, our legal notice service prepares the formal step and our cheque bounce case service the specific route where a payment instrument has failed.
A promise with no stated consequence is a sentence, not a clause.
Four elements. What is promised — conformity with the specification, freedom from defects in material and workmanship, fitness for a stated purpose where you have told them the purpose. For how long, from when — delivery, commissioning or first use, which can differ by months. The remedy — repair, replacement or credit, and at whose option. And who pays the freight both ways, which is where warranty claims quietly become expensive.
Say what happens to the warranty on a replaced item: does a fresh period start for it, or does the original run on? Both are defensible and only one of them is in your document.
Where goods form part of something you sell on, think about whether the warranty period you are receiving is shorter than the one you are giving. That mismatch is common and it is entirely your exposure.
And keep the warranty separate from acceptance. Accepting a delivery is about what was visible then; a warranty is about what emerges later.
One of the most valuable clauses available to a buyer and one almost nobody asks for.
For anything you will own or operate for years, ask for three commitments. Spares available for a stated period after the last supply. Notice before a part is discontinued, long enough to react. And a right to place a final order when something is being withdrawn.
Add a fallback for the case where the supplier cannot or will not continue: access to the drawings and specifications needed to have the part made elsewhere, or a right to the tooling, which the next section deals with.
None of these are unusual requests and they are easiest to obtain at the beginning, when the supplier is trying to win the work rather than being asked to concede something.
And they are worth most in exactly the situation nobody plans for: a small supplier who closes, retires or is sold.
Extremely common and it should be addressed rather than discovered during a problem.
Say whether subcontracting is permitted at all; whether it needs your prior written consent; and — the part that matters most — that the supplier remains fully responsible to you for anything a subcontractor does or fails to do.
Without that last line, a defect can produce the answer nobody wants: that this part was made by somebody else and the problem is between you and them. You have no contract with them, so in practice it is nobody’s.
Where a particular subcontractor matters to you — a specialist process, a specific plant — name them and say they may not be changed without consent. Where the supplier simply uses a transport contractor, do not over-engineer it.
And extend the confidentiality and tooling obligations down the chain, because a drawing given to a subcontractor is a drawing that has left your supplier’s building.
Where the equipment in question belongs to one side and is used by the other, ownership is not the only question — possession, insurance, maintenance and return all need saying. Our equipment lease agreement guide deals with that document.
If one section of this page is worth arguing for, it is this one, because it quietly determines whether you can ever change supplier.
Where you have paid for a mould, a die, a jig, a fixture or a set of drawings, the agreement should say four things. That it is yours. That it is identified and marked as yours at the supplier’s premises. That it is kept insured and maintained, and by whom. And that you may collect it, on notice, at any time and particularly at the end.
Add a register: what tooling exists, where each item is, and its condition. An asset you own, sitting in somebody else’s factory, unlisted, is an asset you will have difficulty describing when you want it back.
The same logic covers designs, drawings and technical information. Say who owns what was created for you, who may use it, and what happens to copies at the end.
Where a supplier developed something at their own cost, that is theirs, and it is better to acknowledge that clearly than to write a clause claiming everything and discover it was never accepted. What you need is certainty, not a land grab.
Gently but firmly: a buyer with no right to their tooling is a buyer who cannot leave, whatever the termination clause says.
Kept short here because it is a subject in its own right.
What a vendor agreement needs is the basics: what is confidential, that it may be used only for the purpose of the supply, who it may be shared with, what happens to it at the end, and how long the obligation lasts beyond termination.
Where the information is genuinely sensitive — a formulation, a process, customer data — a separate and fuller document is the right answer, and our non-disclosure agreement guide deals with it properly.
One practical point specific to supply: your order volumes and prices are information too, and a supplier who also serves your competitors should be told so explicitly rather than left to assume.
And make the obligation mutual where the supplier is also sharing something of theirs. A one-sided confidentiality clause in a relationship of equals tends to get negotiated anyway.
A word used loosely in conversation and with real consequences on paper.
Exclusive can mean two quite different things and both should be stated deliberately: that you will buy only from them, or that they will supply only you in a defined field or territory. Businesses agree to the first while believing they agreed to the second.
Preferred is what most buyers actually want: a commitment to offer them the work first, on agreed terms, without being locked in if they cannot perform.
If you do grant exclusivity, price it, limit it in time and territory, and tie it to performance — volumes, quality, delivery — with the right to end it if performance fails. Open-ended exclusivity with no performance condition is the version that causes regret.
And consider whether exclusivity raises wider questions for your business, which is a matter to take advice on rather than to settle from a template.
A clause worth having and worth writing narrowly.
The useful version requires the supplier to hold whatever registrations and licences their own trade needs, to keep them current, to tell you promptly if one lapses, and to produce evidence on request.
The useless version is a long list copied from somewhere, covering things that do not apply to this supplier, which nobody will check and which therefore protects nobody.
So ask what actually applies to this trade and require that. And ask for the two or three documents you would genuinely want to see, rather than an annual bundle nobody reads.
Where the supply is regulated in a way that touches your own obligations, that is a question for somebody advising on your sector, not for a general agreement clause.
Where a supply relationship stops being only about goods, and the paperwork has to keep up.
The agreement should say who those people work for, that the supplier is responsible for them and for their conduct, that they will follow your site rules, and who carries insurance for what.
It should also cover the practical: identification, access, working hours, supervision, and reporting of anything that goes wrong on site.
This is an area where a general clause is not sufficient and where the surrounding obligations depend on your own circumstances, so take advice on your position rather than relying on a template. We will say so rather than drafting confidently around it.
What we can do is make sure the agreement records the arrangement accurately, which is the part that is usually missing entirely.
Say what cover the supplier must carry, that it must remain in force, and that they will produce evidence on request.
Keep it proportionate. A small supplier of consumables being asked for the same cover as a heavy engineering contractor will either refuse or will agree and not comply, and the second is worse.
Where goods are being held for you at their premises, or your tooling is there, say who insures it. This is frequently assumed and rarely written, and it is exactly the question that arises after a fire.
Where transit is involved, tie the insurance clause to the risk clause so they agree with each other. A document where risk passes at one point and insurance is required at another has a gap in it.
Most poorly drafted agreements have one termination clause doing two incompatible jobs.
For convenience. Either side may end the arrangement on stated notice, because businesses change. The length of notice is the real negotiation: long enough for you to find another supplier, long enough for them to redeploy. Asymmetric notice is common and should be deliberate.
For cause. Something has gone wrong. Say what counts, give a chance to fix it where fixing is possible and a stated period to do so, and say what happens if it is not fixed.
Add the specific cases that need no cure period, and keep that list short and obvious.
Then say what termination does not end: accrued payment obligations, warranties on goods already supplied, confidentiality, and your rights to tooling and data. A clause that ends everything ends things you wanted to keep.
The clause nobody writes and everybody wishes they had.
Six things belong in it. Open orders — completed, cancelled, or completed only up to a point. Stock held for you, including materials bought specifically for your orders and what you pay for them. Your tooling and drawings, returned within a stated period and in stated condition. Records and data, handed over in a usable form. Final reconciliation, with a date by which each side raises anything outstanding. And continuing obligations, listed rather than implied.
Add a transition commitment where the supply matters: that they will continue to supply for a stated period after notice, on the same terms, while you move.
This is the section suppliers accept most readily at the start and resist most strongly at the end, which tells you when to write it.
And write it symmetrically. An exit clause that only protects the buyer will be negotiated hard, and a mutual one usually gets agreed without a fight.
Where what is being bought is a subscribed service rather than goods, the dependency question takes a different shape and the exit clause carries your data with it. Our SaaS subscription agreement guide deals with that side.
Not a drafting point exactly, and the agreement is where it gets managed.
Dependency arrives quietly. One supplier is good, so they get more work. Then the tooling is theirs, the drawings are theirs, they know the process, and nobody else has ever made the part.
Four clauses reduce it without changing suppliers: your ownership of tooling and drawings, longer notice before they may end the arrangement, a transition supply commitment, and the spares and continuity undertakings above.
Alongside that, an ordinary commercial habit: know who else could make this, and roughly what it would take. Not as a threat, as information.
The expensive version of this lesson is learning the answer during a dispute, when the supplier knows it too.
Most supply problems are solved by two people talking, and the agreement can make that the first step rather than the accidental one.
A short ladder works: the people who deal with each other daily, within a stated period; then a named senior person on each side; then the formal step the agreement provides for.
Add that supply continues during the process where it reasonably can, because the alternative — a stoppage while a disagreement is discussed — turns a solvable problem into a crisis for both.
Say where formal proceedings would happen, and keep that clause simple and considered rather than copied. Where you want a route other than the ordinary one, that is a decision to take with advice rather than from a template.
And say how notices are given and to whom — address, email, and what counts as received. A dispute clause that works perfectly and a notice clause nobody can satisfy is a common and avoidable combination.
The administrative end, and it is where otherwise good documents lose their value.
Signed by somebody entitled to sign. For a company that usually means a person authorised to do so, and it is reasonable to ask how. Our certified true copy service deals with copies of whatever is produced.
Stamped as required, which depends on where it is executed and what it is. This page prints no rates, because they differ and change — ask before signing, since it is much easier to deal with then.
Annexures signed and dated too, because an unsigned specification attached to a signed agreement is the loose end that gets pulled.
Kept as one set — the agreement, the annexures, the order format, and every signed variation. Scanned, with an index, findable by somebody who was not involved.
And diarise the review date. A framework agreed three years ago for a business that has since changed is a document describing somebody else’s supply chain.
Not every purchase needs the document above, and a small business should not be frightened out of having anything.
The short version, on one page: what is being supplied and against which specification or sample; price and what it includes; delivery point and date; payment terms and when the clock starts; how long you have to inspect and reject, and what happens to rejects; a warranty with a remedy; who owns any tooling; and how either side ends it.
Eight points, signed by both, referenced on every order. It is not as good as the full document and it is enormously better than nothing, which is what most small buyers have.
Our agreement drafting service prepares that short form, and our service agreement and consultancy agreement services deal with buying work rather than goods.
Where the supply is a service with measurable performance, our service level agreement guide covers how that is written, which is a genuinely different exercise from this one.
Each of them is ordinary, and each is a clause that was never written.
Nobody said which document prevails, so the agreement and the order both claim to govern.
Acceptance was never defined, so a dispute about quality became a dispute about whether it was too late to complain.
Risk in transit was assumed, and a damaged consignment turned out to belong to whoever blinked first.
Rejected goods had no home, and sat in a warehouse for a year with an invoice attached.
The tooling was never claimed, so changing supplier meant paying to make it all again.
There was no exit clause, so the last month of a five-year relationship was the worst part of it.
We start by asking how you actually buy, because the answer changes the document completely. A single purchase, recurring orders against a framework, or a committed quantity drawn down over time are three different arrangements, and most people describe the second while being handed a document for the first.
Then we draft both layers so they fit — a framework that carries everything stable and an order format that carries only what changes — with the precedence sentence in both, so the two can never quietly disagree.
Then we put the awkward clauses in front of you while they are still negotiable: tooling, exclusivity, notice periods, what happens on the last day. Those are the ones suppliers concede at the beginning and resist at the end, and raising them early is most of the value here.
We also read what the other side sends. An acknowledgement carrying its own conditions is a document that needs answering, and we will tell you what to say and how briefly.
And we keep it proportionate. A supplier of packing material does not need the document you would write for a critical component, and pretending otherwise wastes your money and their patience.
We do not advise on tax. Whether the price is inclusive or exclusive belongs in the agreement; what follows from that belongs to your own adviser.
We do not settle commercial terms for you. Price, volume, notice periods and whether to grant exclusivity are your decisions; our job is to make sure the document says what you decided.
We do not draft around a clause you have not read. Where a supplier’s conditions are being accepted, we will tell you what is in them rather than letting them pass.
We give no opinion on how a clause would be decided if it were ever tested. That is a legal opinion and it belongs to whoever you engage for it, who is retained and paid by you directly.
We do not produce a document you cannot operate. An agreement requiring approvals nobody has time to give will be ignored within a month, and an ignored agreement is worse than a short one.
Our work begins at ₹900, the usual span is 1 – 2 days, you are told the whole figure before anything starts, and nothing is payable in advance. A matching order format and the annexure set, done at the same time, cost less than having them prepared later as a separate job.
Reviewing an agreement a supplier has sent you is a smaller piece of work and is priced as one. So is a short one-page form for a small buyer.
What lengthens it is almost never the drafting. It is a commercial point that has not actually been decided — notice periods, tooling, exclusivity — and we would rather wait for the decision than write around it.
And the honest closing note, because several of the most valuable things here cost nothing at all: say which document prevails. Define acceptance and the rejection window. Say when risk passes. Claim your tooling in writing. Write the exit clause while everybody is getting along. Five sentences, added to whatever you already use, and they remove most of what goes wrong in supply.
A vendor agreement is signed once and the buying happens every week, which is why so many supply disputes are really arguments about which document governs. We find out how you actually buy before drafting anything, write the framework and the order format so they fit, put the precedence sentence in both, and make acceptance testable rather than debatable. Then we raise the clauses suppliers concede at the start and resist at the end — tooling, notice, exclusivity, and what happens on the last day — while they are still easy to agree.
Two doors, both free. Clients search a factual directory of enrolled advocates. Advocates apply to be listed on it — no fee, no commission, nothing paid in either direction.
Search Bar Council enrolled advocates by what your matter is about, by court, or by city. Searching and sending a request are both free.
Enrolled advocates anywhere in India can apply to be listed. Your entry is published only after we verify your enrolment number with your State Bar Council.
This directory carries no ratings, no reviews, no rankings and no fees — only the factual particulars the Bar Council of India permits, published at each advocate's own request. Browse the network · Terms for Advocates