I can understand that the same terms and conditions apply to purchases under a framework contract and to purchases under individual orders: their concerns as buyers are the same in both contexts. It is therefore possible that, in order to reduce betaCo and Acme`s transaction costs, the terms and conditions of each stand-alone order issued to BetaCo are significantly reduced and made less one-sided. If you have a framework contract, the general terms and conditions – in other words, everything that does not concern commercial matters such as the product and the price – are included in the contract; Orders placed under the contract contain only the terms and conditions. In addition, the general terms and conditions are negotiated in a framework agreement. On the other hand, if you buy something with a stand-alone order, the terms and conditions and terms and conditions are included in the order, and these terms and conditions are set unilaterally by the buyer and are not negotiated. This is of great interest to me, as our legal department has prepared a new set of terms and conditions for our stand-alone order, which essentially reflects the terms and conditions of our standard framework contract. This means that the new terms and conditions are complete and one-sided in our favour. It`s also three times longer than the general terms we currently use for standalone POs. I am torn between the desire to protect our business by using a comprehensive set of terms and conditions for all our transactions and the desire to use a shorter set of terms and conditions to expedite our standalone PO transactions, most of which are low risk.
I would like to know what you think. Of course, BetaCo`s transaction costs could be significantly reduced the next time Acme deposits a standalone order. But this assumes that the same BetaCo staff processes the second order as the first. And even more, when processing the first order, it would be risky for BetaCo to think that it would actually be able to amortize its transaction costs during future purchases: from what it knows, Acme`s first PO could be its last. Thesaurus: All synonyms and antonyms for stand-alone stand-alone. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, webster merriam, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stand-alone. Called December 6, 2020. Currently, the general conditions in my company`s framework contracts aim to be exhaustive, but those of our autonomous orders are shorter. One of the main reasons for this is that the inclusion of general conditions in an order imposes requirements on the supplier. As the terms and conditions of our stand-alone POs have not been negotiated in advance with the supplier, they are a source of delay, as the supplier must read them and can then object to one or more of the terms and conditions.
And the longer the terms and conditions, the greater the likelihood of a delay and the greater the risk that the supplier will decide not to want to conclude the agreement given the choice of additional unilateral words. Sometimes we have to negotiate; In other cases, we agree with the supplier that we resolve disputes in accordance with the Single Commercial Code. BetaCo`s transaction costs may well be lower than Alphaco`s: a one-time transaction would not be so large that BetaCo might be willing to accept certain terms and conditions without haggling. However, it would not be reasonable to expect the transaction costs borne by Betaco to amount to 1% of the transaction costs borne by Alphaco – the time required to read and understand the terms and conditions would be the same for both transactions. As you know, goods or services can be purchased through orders placed under a framework contract or orders that are not delivered under a framework contract – I refer to the latter as “full-fledged” POs. . . .