EU unhappy with astrazeneca

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

in my opinion, i would say the EU have broken this part of the contract, i would say that with whats been written in the media and shouted about etc, the EU have not negotiated in good faith.

but thats just my opinion

18.5. Resolution.
(a) In the event of a dispute arising under this Agreement between the Parties, the
Parties shall first refer such dispute to informal dispute resolution discussions
between their respective Executive Officers. AstraZeneca, on the one hand, or the
Commission, on the other hand on behalf of the Commission or the applicable
Participating Member State, may initiate such informal dispute resolution by
sending written notice of the dispute to the other Party, and, within twenty (20)
days of such notice, the Executive Officers shall meet and attempt to resolve the
dispute by good faith negotiations.

Hence the meeting sceduled for Wednesday, that AZ would not attend, then did.

Now how, in your opinion, have EU broken that contract?

 

[sxturbo]

I don;t think you've read that properly.
Let me spell it out for you, and you can compare the wording:
In the event of AZ's ability to fulfil its obligations under this agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by or on bhalf of the commission.....
Clearly this refers to any agreement entered into with any other nation in the EU.
It does not refer to any contracts with any other non-EU party.

Now the kicker is: obvioulsy you're pretty naff at reading and comprehending contracts.

at the time of signing we were part of the EU.

in the contract it also doesnt mention about 3rd party agreements, though i only got to page 30 and got bored

 

[sxturbo]

Hence the meeting sceduled for Wednesday, that AZ would not attend, then did.

Now how, in your opinion, have EU broken that contract?

because shouting in the public about how unfairly they have been treated, and stating they will be "demanding" there contract is delivered in full is not attending a meeting in good faith.

 

[sxturbo]

from page 38

(h) Capacity Limitations. In the event AstraZeneca's ability to fulfill its obligations
under this Agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by or on
behalf of the Participating Member State, AstraZeneca shall promptly inform the
Participating Member State. While AstraZeneca shall continue to use Best
Reasonable Efforts to engage with its own contract manufacturers and suppliers
to utilize the capacity and/or components, the Participating Member State will
assist in finding a mutually acceptable solution for this Agreement and the
competing agreement. To the extent AstraZeneca’s performance under this
Agreement is impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not
be deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the
aforementioned competing agreement(s).

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

that is page 3, article 1.9, which article 1 is "definitions"

To the lay reader, the definition seems to do little to clear up any dispute. Only a court would eventually be able to decide whether AZ’s production problems fell under the umbrella of the definition.
But one thing could clear up the whole matter, according to legal observers in London, reported by the Guardian. If AZ has been sending shipments to other customers normally while the EU shipment was cut, that would go against their claim to be giving their best reasonable efforts, according to David Greene, president of the Law Society and a contract litigator.

“If they [AZ] gave assurances that they made reasonable best efforts to supply the EU but were in fact diverting material from one place to another, that would on the face of it be a potential breach of obligations to use reasonable best efforts,” he told the paper.
Speaking on German radio this morning, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said, “There are binding orders and the contract is crystal clear,” she said. “AstraZeneca has also explicitly assured us in this contract that no other obligations would prevent the contract from being fulfilled.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/...-vaccine-contract-advance-purchase-agreement/​

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

at the time of signing we were part of the EU.

But they were clearly not acting by or on behalf of the commission.

in the contract it also doesnt mention about 3rd party agreements, though i only got to page 30 and got bored

Dealt with in quote from Brussels Times.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

from page 38

(h) Capacity Limitations. In the event AstraZeneca's ability to fulfill its obligations
under this Agreement is impeded by a competing agreement entered into by or on
behalf of the Participating Member State, AstraZeneca shall promptly inform the
Participating Member State. While AstraZeneca shall continue to use Best
Reasonable Efforts to engage with its own contract manufacturers and suppliers
to utilize the capacity and/or components, the Participating Member State will
assist in finding a mutually acceptable solution for this Agreement and the
competing agreement. To the extent AstraZeneca’s performance under this
Agreement is impeded by any such competing agreements, AstraZeneca shall not
be deemed in breach of this Agreement as a result of any such delay due to the
aforementioned competing agreement(s).

Dealt with in the quote from the Brussels Times.
If AZ were diverting supplies to a different customer, they were clearly not acting in the "best efforts" to meet the contract with the EU.

This is the crux of the matter, and EU suspect that that is what is happening.

 

[EddieM]

To the lay reader, the definition seems to do little to clear up any dispute. Only a court would eventually be able to decide whether AZ’s production problems fell under the umbrella of the definition.
But one thing could clear up the whole matter, according to legal observers in London, reported by the Guardian. If AZ has been sending shipments to other customers normally while the EU shipment was cut, that would go against their claim to be giving their best reasonable efforts, according to David Greene, president of the Law Society and a contract litigator.

“If they [AZ] gave assurances that they made reasonable best efforts to supply the EU but were in fact diverting material from one place to another, that would on the face of it be a potential breach of obligations to use reasonable best efforts,” he told the paper.
Speaking on German radio this morning, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said, “There are binding orders and the contract is crystal clear,” she said. “AstraZeneca has also explicitly assured us in this contract that no other obligations would prevent the contract from being fulfilled.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/...-vaccine-contract-advance-purchase-agreement/​

She's entitled to her misguided, incorrect opinion I suppose. Deflection, her jobs at stake.

If party a) has a binding contract and part b) has a best endeavours contract. Who wins?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

because shouting in the public about how unfairly they have been treated, and stating they will be "demanding" there contract is delivered in full is not attending a meeting in good faith.

If the contract has already been broken by AZ then it's irrelevant.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

She's entitled to her misguided, incorrect opinion I suppose. Deflection, her jobs at stake.

If party a) has a binding contract and part b) has a best endeavours contract. Who wins?

That's a silly comment.
How could AZ agree a binding contract with UK when it did not know if or when their vaccine would make it past clinical trials?

 

[EddieM]

If the contract has already been broken by AZ then it's irrelevant.

Total conjecture.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Total conjecture.

An 'If' condition is not conjecture. It's a pre-emptive condition.

If the contract has already been broken by AZ then it's irrelevant.

 

[EddieM]

That's a silly comment.
How could AZ agree a binding contract with UK when it did not know if or when their vaccine would make it past clinical trials?

If your vaccine works, you will supply the UK solely by dd.mm.yyyy or words to that effect etc etc...

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

If your vaccine works, you will supply the UK solely by dd.mm.yyyy or words to that effect etc etc...

Speaking on German radio this morning, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said, “There are binding orders and the contract is crystal clear,” she said. “AstraZeneca has also explicitly assured us in this contract that no other obligations would prevent the contract from being fulfilled.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/...-vaccine-contract-advance-purchase-agreement/​

 

[Trazor]

Speaking on German radio this morning, Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said, “There are binding orders and the contract is crystal clear,” she said. “AstraZeneca has also explicitly assured us in this contract that no other obligations would prevent the contract from being fulfilled.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/...-vaccine-contract-advance-purchase-agreement/......

More opinions then.