How to Lock in Your Product Manufacturing Prices, or Not

Home | China Law Blog | How to Lock in Your Product Manufacturing Prices, or Not With the recent onslaught of tariffs, our international manufacturing lawyers are increasingly drafting manufacturing contracts for Asian countries beyond China. In the last few weeks alone, we've drafted manufacturing contracts for Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and India. We also have seen a noticeable uptick in our Mexico contracts as well. One of the issues our manufacturing lawyers perpetually face is pricing. How much will the factory charge to make widgets and, more importantly, how much will it charge for the widgets a month and a year from now. And what about currency flucuations? Many of our clients (especially those recently stung by trade tariffs) are seeking to lock in pricing. If you are maybe going to buy 1000 widgets at $34 from time to time with no minimum requirements, no legitimate factory anywhere will lock in its prices for any extended period, if at all. They have no incentive to take a risk for an occasional buyer. But if you contractually commit to buy five million such widgets, the factory will be a lot more willing to give you a price lock. The same holds true for currency risks -- which really just translates to price in the end. If you are an occasional buyer of 1000 widgets, you likely will not find a factory that will commit to selling you its widgets for $34 for the next five years, no matter how much the Dong/Rupee/Ringgit/Bhat/Rupiah/Riel/Peso/RMB changes against the Dollar or Euro. If you are buying five million widgets, sharing in currency risks could be doable. Yet many foreign companies believe it possible to get a price lock when it isn't. Even worse, many foreign companies believe they have a price lock when they don't. Most factories are well-versed in how to convince their buyers that there is a price lock when there isn't. These factories lure buyers with a fake price lock and then when that price lock really matters, they easily and legally back out. Factories dupe product buyers on price locks by refusing to accept a purchase they are under no obligation to accept. The below email from one of my firm's lawyers regarding negotiations with a Vietnam factory illustrates this sort of legerdemain: The discussion on price adjustment is meaningless. If the Vietnamese factory is not required to accept all purchase orders with the locked price, it can change its price simply by refusing to accept your Purchase Order (PO). It is standard practice in Vietnam (and pretty much everywhere else) for the factory to agree to a low price and in return get certain minimum order commitments from you the foreign buyer. Then when the factory's costs rise (or less common, its currency rises), the factory will refuse to accept your purchase orders until you agree to pay a higher price. A price lock is meaningful only if the factory is required to accept your purchase orders with the locked price. In this case, your factory has rejected that approach, which means you will not have any price protection. Your factory understands this and this is why it revised the contract as it did. You must decide whether you want to move forward with this factory without price protection or see if you can get price protection elsewhere. You might want to see whether you agreeing to commit to buying more from this factory will get you a real price lock or not. What are you doing about product price locks? Check Out Our China Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Dan Harris Dan Harris is a founding member of Harris Sliwoski, an international law firm where he mostly represents companies doing business in emerging market countries. Most of his time is spent helping American and European companies navigate foreign countries by working with the international lawyers at his firm in setting up companies overseas (WFOEs, Subsidiaries, Rep Offices and Joint Ventures), drafting international contracts, protecting IP, and overseeing M&A transactions. In addition, Dan writes and speaks extensively on international law, with a focus on protecting foreign businesses in their overseas operations. He is also a prolific and widely-followed blogger, writing as the co-author of the award-winning China Law Blog. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More International Manufacturing Related Posts September 15, 2026 Your AI-Drafted China Contract Says It Needs a Lawyer. Listen to It. September 11, 2026 Forensic Accountants in China Business Litigation: How True Numbers Can Tell the Wrong Story September 4, 2026 China NNN Agreement or Trademark Registration? You Usually Need Both September 1, 2026 AI Didn't Replace Lawyers. It Gave Us the 48-Page Contract. August 27, 2026 Do I Need a China NNN Agreement or a China Manufacturing Agreement? Usually Both. August 26, 2026 China’s New Overseas Investment Rules: Can Your Chinese Investor Actually Get the Money Out? August 24, 2026 International IP Protection for Startups: What to Protect and Where August 19, 2026 The Documents Are the International Deal August 19, 2026 China Supplier Fraud in Yiwu: Why We Recommended the Police, Not a Lawsuit August 17, 2026 China Trademark Registration: Why U.S. Companies Need More Than a Filing Agent August 10, 2026 Buying Expensive Equipment from China: Seven Questions to Answer Before You Pay August 7, 2026 DDP Shipping Risks: What Boise Cascade’s Guilty Plea Means for U.S. Buyers August 6, 2026 Protecting Your Artwork Internationally: What Artists Need to Do Before the Work Travels August 5, 2026 Your China Employee Signed the Vacation Policy. You Can Still Lose. July 29, 2026 The RedNote Contract Lesson for Companies Doing Business in China Leave a comment Cancel reply