Interesting Purchase Order for its Terms and Conditions

[Mike S.], all of these are buried in the fine print that your organization agrees to every time it accepts a purchase order. It's just that nobody ever reads them in detail to determine what all the organization has actually committed to. They are in the body of the P.O., or in other documents referenced in that P.O., or in boilerplate language on the website of the purchasing organization.

The other side of that coin is that nobody in the purchasing organization is aware that they are asking for all of these things. As near as I can determine, the list of contractual, regulatory and statutory requirements is like a layer of sedimentary stone, topped with perhaps some river bottom mud.

The document(s) were created with good purposes, then as new requirements were identified either by internal or external sources, these were added to the list. Often the organizations have no idea that they are supposed to supply or receive these deliverables. The top layer of mud is revised periodically, and the ones in stone are forgotten but remain in force since nobody ever got around to deleting them.

Sometimes I find contradictions between the terms of the purchase order template and the documents referenced in that template. I will periodically push back on some of the more onerous ones, and the response I usually get is " did we really ask for that? "

And today's winner is:

" Words, as employed in this Agreement, shall have their normally accepted meanings ".

EDIT: Usually buyers profess they are unable to change a P.O. once it's been issued. I did get this response back this week from one of the big aerospace boys:

" Apparently these should have never been called out so I have QA’s approval to remove them from the PO. I will send a revised PO tomorrow."

And I saved the following email exchange yesterday:

Me: Customer has included a new aircraft worthiness requirement in this P.O. that I don't believe is applicable to us, either that or they have some unshared expectations we need to clarify

Sales: But we shipped this to them before !

Me: Yes, and it wasn't in those P.O.s - Please contact the customer

Customer: OMG ! I didn't see that on the purchase requisition - the normal quality guy is on vacation, and the guy covering for him put that in - please disregard.

Me: There is such a thing as a normal quality guy? And they get vacations ?

Our Project Manager: I don't think there is such a thing as a normal quality guy. You can't be normal and do that thankless job. Not possible.

normzone said:

[Mike S.], all of these are buried in the fine print that your organization agrees to every time it accepts a purchase order.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, no, no they are not. Not in my contracts. I catch some nutty stuff, but have seen nothing like the crazy stuff you have seen.

Actually this one is quite common in the mass transit industry as these projects last a few years and rely on grants and federal funding which are annual events. We are currently working on an AMxxxx project (two year estimated) that was begun in 2010 and is only half complete at the moment, deliveries are repeatedly 'postponed' and the quoted original price must be held through the project. This is also the case with federal mass purchases over longer time periods.

Well, I consider myself lucky then, that my cross to bear comes with unintentional laughs attached.

We supply custom computers to military and industry - your product line may have different boilerplate philosophies.

You're going to like this one ...

One of the big aerospace boys is taking a new approach. The Ts & Cs state that the customer may come back anytime in the next few years and request compliance (at no additional cost) with the full suite of European regulations - ROHS, REACH, WEE, et al.

It further states that this compliance will be delivered within six weeks of the notification, AND that if you, the supplier, knew OR had any information that would lead you to believe the product may go to the European market, then you will deliver on all this up front, whether or not they specifically want it.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, this makes sense. Why control all these things when you have not yet identified all possible customers? Just put your supplier on the hook for potential rapid delivery some years down the road.

People that write that kinda stuff should be driven out due to malpractice.

And today's entry on this list is ...

" Anything that we, the customer, tell you, is confidential. However, anything that you, the supplier, tell us, is our property and we can use it as we see fit ... "

normzone said:

And today's entry on this list is ...

" Anything that we, the customer, tell you, is confidential. However, anything that you, the supplier, tell us, is our property and we can use it as we see fit ... "

Click to expand...

Seen that one, but a step further...

Anything that you, the supplier, disclose is our property and you, the supplier, may use it only in the service of doing business with us.

...funny, we don't sell anything to them...wonder how that happened?

normzone said:

And today's entry on this list is ...

" Anything that we, the customer, tell you, is confidential. However, anything that you, the supplier, tell us, is our property and we can use it as we see fit ... "

Click to expand...

That's an actual quote in a contract?

Are you dealing with North Korea?

Well, it's not a direct quote. I condensed a paragraph down to that sentence.

No, not North Korea - just major and minor players in aerospace, mining, offshore, medical, scientific and manufacturing.