- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,393
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
There was disagreement.there is no conjecture with regards what they told the EU at point of contract,
The EU said one thing and AZ said another. UK also refuted AZ's assertion.
That is also open to interpretation.hence why best efforts was termed a number of times throughout the contract.
Did the 'best efforts' refer to producing the vaccine in EU, or to supplying the vaccine on due contracted dates?
AZ have moved ion that issue, so one makes one's own deductions.
I've not seen that. Perhaps you'd be good enough to provide the link to your source.its also not conjecture when its written in the contract that the upfront payment is for gearing up to meet the deadline
But it has little relevance. A forward future order payment may contain such arrangements. The EU contract payment would still be equally applicable as UK payments, especially if there was no priority order (and there wasn't, or there was, but there wasn't ) in the contract.
In addition, if EU's forward payments was used to gear up the EU's supply, but that supply was diverted to another customer, then there is some skulduggery going on.