Should a co-packer charge a brand for lost production line time when the brand's materials arrive late?

This is a contentious issue with legitimate arguments on both sides. The community consensus leans toward acknowledging the co-packer's costs—a strong majority (12 out of 14 responses) agreed the charge is justified in principle, recognizing that manufacturers do have fixed production-line costs to cover.

**Key considerations from the community:**

- **The brand's responsibility matters**: If the brand is ordering materials and missing deadlines due to its own disorganisation, members generally felt the charge was fair. The co-packer has production slots booked and incurs costs if the line sits idle.

- **Supplier fault changes the equation**: If the delay is caused by the material supplier (not the brand's ordering), the situation is murkier. Members flagged this as "a tough one"—the brand shouldn't necessarily bear the cost of a third-party supplier's failure.

- **Pattern vs. one-off**: A single late delivery is different from a pattern of chronic late arrivals. Members noted that repeated disorganisation justifies charges more readily.

- **Cash-flow reality**: One member noted an important caveat: while they understand the co-packer's position, early-stage brands may be "so strapped for cash" that they'd struggle to pay a bill, even if they accept it's fair. This could become a relationship problem and potentially trigger a search for a new manufacturing partner.

**Bottom line**: Members recommend treating this as a conversation item in the contract or SLA—clarify who owns material ordering, what constitutes acceptable lead times, and under what conditions line charges apply. Prevention (better planning) is cheaper than the argument.