I've tried reading the contract but can't see anything to say AZ have to cut output for all their customer base. Section 5.4 specifically mentions what can occur when AZ fail to meet it's obligations (the EU can source and offer additional manufacturing capability) but is it mentioned elsewhere?Theres no differentiation between the EU manufacturing sites and the U.K. sites, they’re one and the same. That’s not the point though.
If there’s a shortfall in production that’s fine, Pfizer had that too. They cut it for all their customer base though. If AZ also say there’s a shortfall because vaccines are already prioritised for a different customer, then that’s not a reasonable excuse for breaching it as per their own stipulation.
Honestly mate confuses me as well!! half the time I read meltons posts as my own ;)
Not when production location is explicit to the contract between the EU and AZ it isn’t - else they could argue for the US output as well...but they aren’t are they?
Ha! Me too!
I've tried reading the contract but can't see anything to say AZ have to cut output for all their customer base. Section 5.4 specifically mentions what can occur when AZ fail to meet it's obligations (the EU can source and offer additional manufacturing capability) but is it mentioned elsewhere?
I suspect AstraZeneca's operations in Europe operate as an independent corporate entity, able to enter in to contracts that oblige them and them alone.
Is the production location explicit in the contract?
I suspect AstraZeneca's operations in Europe operate as an independent corporate entity, able to enter in to contracts that oblige them and them alone.
Is the production location explicit in the contract?
For real? How many vaccines has the EU had for its bigger population?Back in the real world, you do understand the difference in populations don’t you?
Section 5.4 seems to deem the UK sites to be part of the EU production area in terms of making up any shortfalls.
But I haven't seen reference to that either. There's some text relating to agreements the EU might make with other raw material/goods suppliers that have impacted AZ's ability to purchase said materials/goods. Just not seeing anything specific that proves the EUs case.No, there won’t be. It’s more that specifically saying providing vaccines to others cannot be used as a valid reason for the shortfall
It’s mental, bluemetalblue vs meltonblue - it's hard to follow!
But I haven't seen reference to that either. There's some text relating to agreements the EU might make with other raw material/goods suppliers that have impacted AZ's ability to purchase said materials/goods. Just not seeing anything specific that proves the EUs case.
Section 5.4 seems to deem the UK sites to be part of the EU production area in terms of making up any shortfalls.
metalblue vs meltonblue - it's hard to follow!
I’m no way up on contractual law but find your insight valuable.It’s the 13.1 section. AZ signed up to no other agreements could impede on their abilities to fulfil the contract.
“Vaccine war”The EU weren’t ‘talking shite’ as has been pointed out by several other posters who are not having a three day melt over the issue.
No one has absolved the EU of responsibility on this matter or over the vaccine rollout and at no fucking point have I, or anyone as far as I am aware, pointed the finger of blame at the UK, so do everyone a favour and get your facts straight before posting.
That's a tough one if you mean subsection e). It seems to me to be a generic clause but I would be very surprised if they allowed a clause that meant they had to fulfil the obligations (including timeframes) if they also use phrases elsewhere in the contract like 'best efforts' and specify in 5.4 what happens if they are unable to meet the timeframe.It’s the 13.1 section. AZ signed up to no other agreements could impede on their abilities to fulfil the contract.
I’m no way up on contractual law but find your insight valuable.
Are there not two conflicting paragraphs in this contract?
Without checking back, it’s either the 5.4 or 6.2 with this one.
Now I would find it highly unlikely that there would be, I’m sure the legal teams would have been all over this contract, so is it a case of interpretation and how one paragraph supersedes another?
For real, if you order 10 tons of cement and I order 3, but I order mine and pay 3 months before you do, and mine arrives and yours doesn’t, when there’s a supply issue, it’s not my fault is it?For real? How many vaccines has the EU had for its bigger population?
That's a tough one if you mean subsection e). It seems to me to be a generic clause but I would be very surprised if they allowed a clause that meant they had to fulfil the obligations (including timeframes) if they also use phrases elsewhere in the contract like 'best efforts' and specify in 5.4 what happens if they are unable to meet the timeframe.
In any case it would only mean breach of contract and doesn't mean they have to affect another ongoing contract with another customer. That could be forcing them to breach another contract, doesn't sound very EU-like.