Scope Creep Examples — Web design
A request for source files the contract doesn't include
The engagement priced a finished design delivered as production assets. The client asks for the full editable source files — never part of what was quoted.
The proposal was priced for a finished design, delivered as exported, production-ready assets — the price reflected a fixed deliverable, not ownership of the underlying working files. After the project closes, the client asks for the raw source files "just to have them on hand," which is a different, larger deliverable than what was quoted: it hands over the editable templates, component structure, and design system, not just the output.
Clause typically implicated
Clause typically implicated
Intellectual property clause→ — Usually distinguishes what the client owns outright (the finished deliverable) from what the agency retains (working files, templates, reusable components) unless the agreement says otherwise.
Suggested change-order wording
Suggested change-order wording (illustrative, not legal advice)
Our agreement covers the finished, exported assets, which you have full rights to use. The editable source files are typically a separate deliverable, since they include reusable components and templates that go beyond the scoped work. I'm glad to provide them for an additional fee of [X] — let me know if you'd like to move forward on that basis.
How this usually resolves
This is worth checking against the actual signed IP clause before responding, since some agencies do include source files by default and others explicitly don't — the answer should come from what was actually agreed, not from a general policy, and it's a much easier conversation when the clause is clear either way.
Related reading