The EU v UK vaccine tussle
Discussion
Nickgnome said:
13(e) it is not under any obligation, contractual or otherwise, to any Person or third
party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent
in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the
complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
This seems to commit AZ to ensure no other agreement can take precedence.
Any lawyers care to comment?
It's 13.1.(e) I believe.party in respect of the Initial Europe Doses or that conflicts with or is inconsistent
in any material respect with the terms of this Agreement or that would impede the
complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;
This seems to commit AZ to ensure no other agreement can take precedence.
Any lawyers care to comment?
Whoozit said:
Wombat3 said:
768 said:
Well, I have not read all 41 pages in detail but there are several references to "Best Efforts", and with a quick search I cannot find the words "UK", "United Kingdom" or "Guarantee" in it anywhere
.....and the very last part of it is an "ESTIMATED delivery schedule"
(I wonder if the word estimated doesn't translate very well?)
Even if there is some kind of technical legal "gotcha" in there , the tone and intent of that agreement seems pretty clear.
The argument then comes back to the Transition period, however, based on everything else, it would be interesting to see how this pans out in law.
Then again...........................ECJ.
This kind of thing happens with internal projects all the time. 'We can't guarantee completion by the 31st but will do our best' gets interpreted as 'It will be done by the 31st no matter what'. The promise is remembered, the qualification forgotten.
But you'd think having a written contract should avoid that problem.
But you'd think having a written contract should avoid that problem.
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Jordan210 said:
Eu are trying to claim best effort is
Important clarification from
@DLFto the wording of @vonderleyen
: "Best effort" applies as long as it was not clear whether they could develop a vaccine. We have now passed that time. The vaccine is here. "There are clear delivery quantities that are included in the contract #AstraZeneca stand.
https://twitter.com/EUinDE/status/1355088305432485...
But if it doesn't exists (excuse the factories are not up to speed) where is AZ supposed to get it from? I am still shocked that a company which is not seeking to make a massive profit from the vaccine is being painted as villains by the EU and some PH posters. Some of flak would be understandable if they were charging €20 a go like Pfzer but they aren't.Important clarification from
@DLFto the wording of @vonderleyen
: "Best effort" applies as long as it was not clear whether they could develop a vaccine. We have now passed that time. The vaccine is here. "There are clear delivery quantities that are included in the contract #AstraZeneca stand.
https://twitter.com/EUinDE/status/1355088305432485...
I also read the the UK started investing in building AZ vaccine factories as far back as February 2020.
Whoozit said:
Wombat3 said:
768 said:
Well, I have not read all 41 pages in detail but there are several references to "Best Efforts", and with a quick search I cannot find the words "UK", "United Kingdom" or "Guarantee" in it anywhere
.....and the very last part of it is an "ESTIMATED delivery schedule"
(I wonder if the word estimated doesn't translate very well?)
Even if there is some kind of technical legal "gotcha" in there , the tone and intent of that agreement seems pretty clear.
don'tbesilly said:
Indeed, the UK ceased being a member quite a few months previously to the contract being signed.
The argument then comes back to the Transition period, however, based on everything else, it would be interesting to see how this pans out in law.
Then again...........................ECJ.
No, it's just lazy wording. They could have just listed the EU 27 and the UK individually, or said the EU or the UK. It doesn't bring our relationship with the EU into it, it remains a commercial contract between the EU and AZ.The argument then comes back to the Transition period, however, based on everything else, it would be interesting to see how this pans out in law.
Then again...........................ECJ.
Octoposse said:
Just going for a lie down in a darkened room . . . UK government minister (Lucy Frazer, Minister of State for Prisons and Probation) says something sensible shock . . .
"That is a commercial matter between AstraZeneca and the EU. But we are confident that the supplies that we have put in place with AstraZeneca, which will help us to reach our target of vaccinating everybody by the autumn, we are confident that we will get the supplies for that . . . But, as I said, our priority is to ensure we vaccinate people in the UK, but of course, where we can help our friends and neighbours, we would do that".
Excellent choice of words from Lucy Frazer. The Europeans are neither our friends (as evidenced by the way France treats us) nor neighbours (English Channel and North Sea). "That is a commercial matter between AstraZeneca and the EU. But we are confident that the supplies that we have put in place with AstraZeneca, which will help us to reach our target of vaccinating everybody by the autumn, we are confident that we will get the supplies for that . . . But, as I said, our priority is to ensure we vaccinate people in the UK, but of course, where we can help our friends and neighbours, we would do that".
The Independent Republic of Ireland ( sorry, provincial department of the EU ) has today, had their allocation of vaccines reduced by the EU from 1.3 million doses to 1.1 million for the first quarter .. with no guarantees beyond that of any supply numbers. The Govt is stating that mass vaccination may not be possible before Q4 this year or even 2022 !
Ireland has managed to vaccinate 140k
Ireland has managed to vaccinate 140k
chrispmartha said:
If they are relying on that they are on a hiding to nothing. All that says to me is that AZ could supply from outside the EU should they need too and are able but will try to do it all in the EU. No way could any reasonable person take that as “we will fulfil your order using other factories if we have too regardless of other commitments”
vikingaero said:
Octoposse said:
Just going for a lie down in a darkened room . . . UK government minister (Lucy Frazer, Minister of State for Prisons and Probation) says something sensible shock . . .
"That is a commercial matter between AstraZeneca and the EU. But we are confident that the supplies that we have put in place with AstraZeneca, which will help us to reach our target of vaccinating everybody by the autumn, we are confident that we will get the supplies for that . . . But, as I said, our priority is to ensure we vaccinate people in the UK, but of course, where we can help our friends and neighbours, we would do that".
Excellent choice of words from Lucy Frazer. The Europeans are neither our friends (as evidenced by the way France treats us) nor neighbours (English Channel and North Sea). "That is a commercial matter between AstraZeneca and the EU. But we are confident that the supplies that we have put in place with AstraZeneca, which will help us to reach our target of vaccinating everybody by the autumn, we are confident that we will get the supplies for that . . . But, as I said, our priority is to ensure we vaccinate people in the UK, but of course, where we can help our friends and neighbours, we would do that".
chrispmartha said:
Jordan210 said:
With Best Reasonable Efforts
Would breaking a contract with say the UK/others who signed up first be reasonable for AZ. If no then they did they Best Reasonable Efforts to supply the EU.
Wouldn't it depend on what's in the UK contract?Would breaking a contract with say the UK/others who signed up first be reasonable for AZ. If no then they did they Best Reasonable Efforts to supply the EU.
Dates of signature are irrelevant.
One contract cannot bind a third party.
It seems that AZ may have over committed, albeit in good faith. Being held to account is not the same as blame.
The resolution has to be by negotiation.
The 'he said she said' thing gets nowhere.
Electro1980 said:
If they are relying on that they are on a hiding to nothing. All that says to me is that AZ could supply from outside the EU should they need too and are able but will try to do it all in the EU. No way could any reasonable person take that as “we will fulfil your order using other factories if we have too regardless of other commitments”
I suppose the point is for the purposes of the contract when it was signed the UK is classed as part of the EU?I don't know I'm not a contract lawyer
chrispmartha said:
Jordan210 said:
With Best Reasonable Efforts
Would breaking a contract with say the UK/others who signed up first be reasonable for AZ. If no then they did they Best Reasonable Efforts to supply the EU.
Wouldn't it depend on what's in the UK contract?Would breaking a contract with say the UK/others who signed up first be reasonable for AZ. If no then they did they Best Reasonable Efforts to supply the EU.
What's normal when you have several competing contracts? AZ say it's to setup internal supply chains dedicated to each contract and not let them interfere with each other. That only has to be a reasonable approach and I guess setup at the start rather than in response to a problem.
Anyway, read Clause 6.2 as it covers what happens if there's a shortfall, ie where we are now. Clause 13 is for the Lawyers in April.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff