journolud
Well-Known Member
It’s mental, blue
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Political relations between UK-EU
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,028
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.
It’s the 13.1 section. AZ signed up to no other agreements could impede on their abilities to fulfil the contract.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,028
Section 5.4 seems to deem the UK sites to be part of the EU production area in terms of making up any shortfalls.
It’s not just that, they were always planned to be part of the distribution chain. The company I work for, one arm of it deals with exactly that.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
metalblue vs meltonblue - it's hard to follow!
with side orders of mentalblue and meltblue?
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
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.
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?
“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.
“the contract doesn’t contain a best effort section”
Both by senior members within the EU, the latter being the President.
If that’s not talking shite I don’t know what is.
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 10,028
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.
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.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,028
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?
No. 6.2 doesn’t say what people earlier in the thread thought it did. That only refers to any additional agreements between the commission and AZ, not other parties and AZ.
5.4 is around the maintenance sites - that’s the key bit that says that U.K. sites are to be considered as included within the definition of EU sites.
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?
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,028
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.
Yeah I’ve only ever said it’s a breach of contract - I said earlier in the thread it doesn’t mean anything for them getting additional vaccines. Ultimately, AZ will have to piss someone off, it’s on them who they decide to do it to (and I doubt that will ever be the U.K. for longer term reasons)
It’s an odd clause that AZ signed up to there (and by odd, I mean stupid and they shouldn’t have done), the other APAs the EU signed up to have something different in them that do say that other orders are justifiable. I assume that’s why they wanted to publish this one though as it is the key bit.