Negotiations Between Chemical Manufacturing Companies Like Pacific And Purchasing Companies

Concerning supplier bargaining power there is very little information about the industry, as companies such as Blackmores are both the manufacturers and distributors of their branded products. Although, most of the inputs used by Blackmores are not highly specialised and packaging companies are dependent on the cheapest option, meaning bargaining power of suppliers is weak.

In 1979 Pacific oil established a major contract with the Reliant Corp. to supply Reliant with VCM. Reliant produces PVC products. Pacific oil acquired a four-year contract and constructed a pipeline from Antwerp, France to Abbeville, France directly connecting Pacific’s facility to Reliant’s facility. When negotiating a contract you would like it to be long in years. The purpose for that is so you can avoid re-negotiatons in the future. With only a four year

The case study on Pacific Oil Company shows from beginning to end the role of power in the outcome of a negotiation. From the beginning, the problem that Pacific Oil Company faced as it reopened negotiations with Reliant Chemical Company was that they did not assert the power necessary to really end up with the outcome of the negotiation they were hoping for. The case study points out several factors that Pacific Oil Company is trying to achieve in the contract negotiations with Reliant Chemical company: the change to a surplus of VCM in the market, the possibility of Pacific Oil needing a supply of their own of VCM to produce their own PVC, and the start-up of several other companies in the production of VCM (Lewiski, n.d.). These

In the given case Liquid Chemical Company manufactures and sells a range of high-grade products. Many of these products require careful packaging. The company has a special patented lining made that it uses in specially designed packing containers. Mr. Walsh the general manager was carefully looking at the problem and as a matter of solution he came up with the four alternatives:

Fontaine and Gaudin had a competitive strategy going into the negotiations. They took the position of hard “distributive” negotiation in which the final outcome was more important than the relationship. Although both companies had a six-year successful business relationship there is no indication that Pacific was interested in a long-term relationship beyond five years with Reliant. This is supported by the fact that VCM market had changed and supply would have increased significantly due to the new VCM manufacturer’s would be up and running in the next two years and overall demand had decreased.

A big goal for Lee Medical Supply in this negotiation is to ensure that the critical issues that could potentially affect the future of Lee Medical Supply be worked out in such a way that not only capitalize upon the strengths of Lee Medical Supply, but remain truthful to our corporate character, which is vital for our reputation, and being able to continue to do business in Thailand.

I was playing the role of the Supplier for Hi-tech batteries (HTB), in the Supplier Negotiation exercise with Kevin Rhudy who was in the role of the Buyer for Auditory Technologies, Inc. (ATI), a medical device firm.

Hauptman and Zinnser utilized Competitive Strategy (win to lose). Unlike Pacific, Reliant had done its research and was fully aware of Pacific’s situation and the market dynamics going on at the time and, presumably well into the future. They had a plan, developed a strategy and used it to their advantage. Essentially, Reliant had been given no incentive by Pacific to extend the contract. They had done their research, and armed with the knowledge gleaned and now aware as to the reasons why Pacific was so eager to extend the contract, they took the opportunity

On the one hand, the circumstances of the sale make me less willing to buy. In particular, both Universal and the federal government think that American’s acquisition creates antitrust issues. If this is the case, American could use its market power to change the nature of the market and make Dixon’s new plant unprofitable by setting lower prices for sodium chlorate in its other plants. On the other hand, the circumstances make me more willing to buy the assets because American has to divest the plant to comply with a court order. Therefore, they have less leverage during the sale

The issues are what jurisdiction shall be used to govern the deal between the parties, issues with the formation of the agreement, warranties, warranty damages, consequential damages, search costs, lost profits, recession.

the negotiations took place with the partners at RSC. Subsequent to a term sheet being settled the

Pharmaceutical companies were flooded with raw material suppliers anxious to sell to such a strong and profitable industry. In 1982, there were over 12,000 chemical companies in the USA alone. Their products had long shelf lives, were readily available from numerous sources, and were bought largely on the basis of price and delivery. These conditions left the chemical suppliers with little power to set the terms and conditions under which their raw chemicals were sold to the drug companies. From the drug companies’ point of view, supplier power was virtually nonexistent.

Both organizations would have benefited from a quicker negotiation process. Pacific assumed that there were aspects of the contract that would need to be discussed. However, they did not feel that, other than price there were major changes that needed to be addressed. For that reason, the absence of strategic planning on Pacific’s part aided in the loss of vital time, resources, and money. Many negotiators fail to ask questions during the process, which was a factor in the negotiation and was Pacific’s shortfall. By asking questions it reveals a great deal of information, the ability to uncover all things that may be left disclosed, and getting to a common ground on what everyone understands as the needs (Barry, Lewicki, Saunders, 2016). Pacific should have started stronger in order to have some common ground and planning would have accomplished this. By laying all the issues and perspectives out on the table the organization could have painted a clearer picture and would have speeded up the process. In the long-term the lack of planning caused more frustration and stress on both sides. By drawing out the negotiation process Pacific risked the loss of a large contract and possibly other items that would have been a win for them. By assuming that Reliant would just be compliant and ink a new contract with no issues it further added to the problem at hand.

The case presents an American company Dow, producer of commodity chemicals, who is in the final stages of acquiring another company Rohm and Haas. Dow’s CEO has been working for four years to transform Dow from a producer of low-value, highly cyclical commodity chemicals to a producer of high-value, specialty chemicals and advanced materials. Rohm is a perfect match for Dow in respect of the strategic and financial perspective. Dow is also pursuing another key deal with Kuwait’s Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC) that was supposed to generate $7 billion cash net of tax which could be used to finance acquisition of specialty chemical maker Rohm & Haas for $18.8 billion all cash deal. However, by late 2008,

My most recent negotiation experience was renegotiating my company’s corporate credit card agreement with American Express. In my experience, contract renegotiation is typically less intensive than the initial negotiation of an agreement with a new vendor, especially if both parties are happy with the current relationship and services being provided.