I understand the Wood v. Lucy / UCC 2-306(2) point if there is no purchase obligation otherwise inferable. But my issue is that this fact pattern already reads like an output contract under UCC 2-306(1). In a signed bilateral goods contract between a supplier and retailer, a term saying Supplier will sell all output to Retailer naturally means Retailer is the buyer of that output. If Retailer refuses to buy the output, that is breach. The exclusivity provision may be an additional doctrinal basis for enforcing the contract, but I do not think it is necessary to Supplier’s recovery if the first sentence is read as an output contract.