GM's New Purchase Order “Program Extension Clause” Sparks Debate: Supplier Concerns Over Unilateral Program Extensions
General Motors (GM) has recently injected a “Program Extension Clause” into its purchase orders, a move that has raised eyebrows among industry experts and suppliers. GM did this without any formal notice or announcement to its suppliers and just inserted this new material term buried at the end of its purchase orders. This new clause purports to provide GM the unilateral right to extend the contract term multiple times, prompting discussions about the potential legal and business ramifications that such a change might precipitate.
The Dynamics of the Program Extension Clause
Under the newly added provision, GM reserves the right to extend the term of a contract at six-month intervals, with no requirement for bilateral agreement during these extensions. The language suggests that GM is aligning its contract terms with practices common among other Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), who structure agreements to match the lifespan of the program, including any extensions. Historically, GM’s purchase orders have included fixed durations through the end of production (EOP) for a particular program, thus marking this addition as a significant divergence from prior norms. It should be noted however, GM’s ability to extend contracts under the new language is not expressly tied to an extension of the existing program(s) to which the contract relates. This raises the risk that GM might try to leverage the new provision to force suppliers to carry over old contracts to new programs.
Key components of the clause include:
- Unilateral Extension: GM can extend contracts at its discretion following a six-month notice, which may lead to multiple subsequent extensions.
- Documentation Requirements: Suppliers will be expected to furnish GM with exhaustive documentation to justify for price adjustments during extensions, but price adjustments will be in GM’s sole discretion.
- Adjustment Meetings: Prior to extensions, GM and the supplier are expected to negotiate adjustments in good faith. These adjustments are aimed at price recalibrations due to cost increases or decreases associated with the goods.
- Pricing Adjustments: In situations where mutual agreement on pricing is unattainable, GM holds the right to “equitably adjust” pricing based on a fair cost assessment.
Application
While it remains to be seen exactly how GM will seek to apply the newly added provision, on its face, the provision purports to apply to not only to new contracts entered into on or after September 20, 2025, but also to any contracts “amended on or after September 20, 2025 where such amendment includes an increase to the price” (excluding price increases “solely” due to material resale/indexation agreements made prior to September 20, 2025 or engineering changes).
Potential Legal Challenges
- Contract of Indefinite Duration
The indefinite extension of contracts could transform agreements into contracts of indefinite duration—a concept fraught with legal challenges. Such contracts may be deemed unenforceable due to concerns about lack of clarity and perpetuity in obligations. The purported right of GM to extend a contract again and again exposes suppliers to unforeseen liabilities and indefinite commitments, particularly given the lack of any language tying such contract extensions to extension of a program.
- Lack of Supplier Agreement
By inserting this clause without prior negotiation, GM is potentially exposing itself to disputes regarding its enforceability. For suppliers, the unilateral nature of these extensions may lead to imbalances in bargaining power. GM is seeking to materially alter the existing agreements—changes which, without mutual consent, might be rejected outright.
- Good Faith and Fair Dealing
While a claim that a party has breached the obligation of good faith and fair dealing imposed on all contracts under the Uniform Commercial code, such arguments may come into play regarding’s GM’s application of the new provision. The language of the provision permits prices to be “equitably adjusted” by GM in the event the parties cannot agree on new pricing for an extension. However, in doing so, GM will remain bound by its obligations of good faith/fair dealing and arguably cannot just ignore information and data provided by a supplier as part of the process.
Suppliers’ Concerns and Industry Implications
Suppliers lacked transparency into this additional term and there were no negotiations involved surrounding the addition of this clause. The extent to which GM plans to apply this to existing programs remains contentious, with suppliers likely to reject unilateral additions to current contracts.
If suppliers accept this term, down the road, many will face challenges in their operational and financial planning due to unpredictable contract durations and pricing structures.
As GM rolls out this new clause, suppliers must carefully review and consider their contractual landscapes. Leveraging negotiation points will be crucial for suppliers entering new programs to protect themselves from the unilateral nature of these extensions and safeguard their interests.
In the evolving automotive industry, as practices shift toward greater program adaptability, the conversation surrounding GM’s Program Extension Clause serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between achieving efficiency and maintaining equitable relationships in the automotive supply chain.
