Brian Kirby Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-24 2:18 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-24 9:00 AM Barryd999 - 2021-03-23 10:29 AM pelmetman - 2021-03-22 7:35 PM Will someone please explain to the Dumbf*ck poster above the difference between "Investing" and "Buying" *-) ........ AstraZeneca was allocated €336 million in public EU funding to help the development and production of its vaccine in collaboration with Oxford University. Still spreading FAKE NEWS *-) .......... The EU INVESTED Sweet FA in AZ >:-) ........ All they did was try and buy it as cheap as possible to save a few shekels, and ensure the small print didn't make the EU liable if it didn't work :-| ......... https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/astrazeneca-gets-partial-immunity-in-low-cost-eu-vaccine-deal Which is why they're at the back of the queue for delivery ;-) ......... You get what you pay for >:-) .......... Did you read what you linked to? It basically sets how the EU is protecting its citizens against possible side effects and assigns where any liability will lie if there is a future claim. Whereas here in the UK the government has given AstraZeneca complete indemnity so if there are issues the taxpayer will pick up the bill. I think a lot depends on how the deal has been reported in various publications. From Dave's "Financial Post" link above: "As part of the supply deals, the only two sealed so far by Brussels, the EU has also made a non-refundable down payment of 336 million euros to AstraZeneca to secure 400 million doses, proportionately lower than the 324 million euros it paid to Sanofi to secure 300 million doses." That can be interpreted as investing the €336 million - in that it was non-refundable if development of the vaccine failed, or as a non-refundable advance purchase payment for 400 million doses to secure supply - in the hope that a viable vaccine would result. Realistically, it seems to me it was both. It was recognition that no commercial business was liable to foot the bill for developing a vaccine from scratch if no-one was likely to buy it. The UK £M65 was (apparently - but who has seen the details? :-)) intended to fund development of the vaccine (clinical trials etc). Someone then had to show willing to buy, so that there would be a reasonable return to the company on the cost of constructing production facilities capable of producing millions (billions?) of doses. Hair splitting over the purpose of whichever funding from whichever source seems to me to somewhat miss the point. If no-one had put in some "up front" cash, there would probably be no vaccine - whether from AZ or whoever. If that initial cash injection had not been forthcoming from government, or quasi governmental, organisations, it is probable that development would have been much slower, if at all, and the price of the vaccine/s (if developed) would have been substantially higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-25 11:21 AM pelmetman - 2021-03-25 10:19 AM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-25 9:21 AM What you reckon AstraZeneca developed the vaccine a month after China released the genetic sequencing data? We know you are stupid, you don't need to keep emphasising the fact. If you did your homework you wouldn't keep making yourself look stupid >:-) ......... "The biggest misconception is the work on the vaccine started when the pandemic began." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55041371 ;-) ............ You haven't read your link again have you. It was developed between January when the sequence was released and the end of April, as I said in my original response. When did the uk agree to fund the Oxford vaccine? Answer May, so who funded the early research? A bit of clarity for our resident Dimwits ;-) .......... UK’s top researchers rapidly working to find a coronavirus vaccine will benefit from £84 million of new government funding, Business Secretary Alok Sharma has announced today (Sunday 17 May). The funding comes as Oxford University today agrees a global licensing agreement with AstraZeneca, the UK-based pharmaceutical company, for the commercialisation and manufacturing of their potential vaccine. This means that, if the Oxford vaccine is successful, AstraZeneca will work to make up to 30 million doses available by September for people in the UK, as part of an agreement to deliver 100 million doses in total. This will mean the UK will be the first country to get access to the vaccine, should it be successful. Business Secretary Alok Sharma said: Our scientists are at the forefront of vaccine development. This deal with AstraZeneca means that if the Oxford University vaccine works, people in the UK will get the first access to it, helping to protect thousands of lives. The agreement will deliver 100 million doses in total, ensuring that in addition to supporting our own people, we are able to make the vaccines available to developing countries at the lowest possible cost. The UK continues to lead the global response to find a vaccine, and the government is backing our scientists to do this as quickly as possible. Pascal Soriot, Chief Executive Officer, AstraZeneca, said: AstraZeneca is at the forefront of the response to COVID-19, and we are proud to be working with Oxford University to help make this vaccine available as quickly as possible. I would like to thank HM Government for its commitment to the vaccine and welcome its leadership and generosity for its help in expanding access beyond the UK. Our company is working hard to establish parallel supply agreements with other nations and multilateral organisations to ensure fair and equitable access around the world. Professor Sir John Bell, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, said: The University of Oxford is immensely proud of the scientists at the Jenner Institute and the Oxford Vaccine Group who have worked tirelessly to discover and develop this vaccine in record time. We now have a partner in AstraZeneca who are ideally positioned to help us evaluate the vaccine, manufacture it and distribute it to UK citizens as well as to the rest of the world. They share our commitment to true global access to end this pandemic. Professor Robin Shattock of Imperial College London said: This funding will greatly accelerate our efforts to demonstrate the effectiveness of our vaccine and make it available to at risk populations as rapidly as possible. Access to such support allows us to move at unprecedented speed. The UK is at the forefront of international efforts to research and develop a vaccine. The government has already pledged £250 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the highest contribution of any country. This is part of the UK committing £388 million to the international drive to develop vaccines, tests and treatments. In June, the UK will also host the upcoming global pledging conference for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-and-manufacturing-boost-for-uk-vaccine-programme Question?........How many months does May arrive before August :D .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 Barryd999 - 2021-03-25 11:00 AM..................... The funding awarded was on the understanding of a contract once it was ready and delivery of a large vaccine order which AZ have failed to deliver. Has anyone seen this famous EU/AZ contract, which is claimed to be publicly visible on the EU website? It's just that the statement above regarding AZ's "failure to deliver" can only be true if the contract stipulated, without further conditions, a fixed delivery date. Given the uncertainties around development of, and up-scaling production of (including the need to secure deliveries of all the vaccine components from a variety of sources), I'd be amazed if AZ were so stupid as to have entered into a simple, "time of the essence", contract. It must, surely, have contained a number of "best endeavours" clauses? Otherwise, they were stark, staring, bonkers! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-25 1:08 PM Barryd999 - 2021-03-25 11:00 AM..................... The funding awarded was on the understanding of a contract once it was ready and delivery of a large vaccine order which AZ have failed to deliver. Has anyone seen this famous EU/AZ contract, which is claimed to be publicly visible on the EU website? It's just that the statement above regarding AZ's "failure to deliver" can only be true if the contract stipulated, without further conditions, a fixed delivery date. Given the uncertainties around development of, and up-scaling production of (including the need to secure deliveries of all the vaccine components from a variety of sources), I'd be amazed if AZ were so stupid as to have entered into a simple, "time of the essence", contract. It must, surely, have contained a number of "best endeavours" clauses? Otherwise, they were stark, staring, bonkers! :-D Barry's just pedaling Fake News again ;-) ......... Coz he's a very angry LOSER >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarySueLola Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 Considering it's our vaccine and was apparently invented 100% thanks to the brave, wonderful Brexiteers (lol) ; it's strange how we are now having to slow our vaccine programme down. The sweaty fat controller seems to have manage to bugger up his one success (actually it wasn't his success, it was the efforts of others, he just claimed it as a success and he's now ruined it by his inability to successfully negotiate anything with anyone - I can see the vultures circling round him already...plenty of fat to gorge on there both literally and metaphorically - might have to explain that last big word to some of the flag wavers on here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 GarySueLola - 2021-03-25 2:28 PM Considering it's our vaccine and was apparently invented 100% thanks to the brave, wonderful Brexiteers (lol) ; it's strange how we are now having to slow our vaccine programme down. The sweaty fat controller seems to have manage to bugger up his one success (actually it wasn't his success, it was the efforts of others, he just claimed it as a success and he's now ruined it by his inability to successfully negotiate anything with anyone - I can see the vultures circling round him already...plenty of fat to gorge on there both literally and metaphorically - might have to explain that last big word to some of the flag wavers on here). Good to see your recognition that an Anglo Swedish company working with a multi nation team of researchers developed one of the vaccines. And its interesting as you note how the fat controller has lost any goodwill by playing games. https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/europe-news/37-nationalities-in-oxford-covid-vaccination-team-91446 What is true is Brian's observation that the plucky Brit story seems to depend on which part of the media is telling it. There seems very little focus on the reaction to AstraZeneca trials in the USA whilst a lot of pointing at the EU. https://www.ft.com/content/5852349c-d4c5-4da5-9c02-031d751db89f And I note that Denmark has still paused its use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-25 1:08 PM Barryd999 - 2021-03-25 11:00 AM..................... The funding awarded was on the understanding of a contract once it was ready and delivery of a large vaccine order which AZ have failed to deliver. Has anyone seen this famous EU/AZ contract, which is claimed to be publicly visible on the EU website? It's just that the statement above regarding AZ's "failure to deliver" can only be true if the contract stipulated, without further conditions, a fixed delivery date. Given the uncertainties around development of, and up-scaling production of (including the need to secure deliveries of all the vaccine components from a variety of sources), I'd be amazed if AZ were so stupid as to have entered into a simple, "time of the essence", contract. It must, surely, have contained a number of "best endeavours" clauses? Otherwise, they were stark, staring, bonkers! :-D It's here Brian; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_302 The second pdf, APA - AstraZeneca is the 42 page contract released by AZ......though heavily redacted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-03-25 2:52 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-25 1:08 PM Barryd999 - 2021-03-25 11:00 AM..................... The funding awarded was on the understanding of a contract once it was ready and delivery of a large vaccine order which AZ have failed to deliver. Has anyone seen this famous EU/AZ contract, which is claimed to be publicly visible on the EU website? It's just that the statement above regarding AZ's "failure to deliver" can only be true if the contract stipulated, without further conditions, a fixed delivery date. Given the uncertainties around development of, and up-scaling production of (including the need to secure deliveries of all the vaccine components from a variety of sources), I'd be amazed if AZ were so stupid as to have entered into a simple, "time of the essence", contract. It must, surely, have contained a number of "best endeavours" clauses? Otherwise, they were stark, staring, bonkers! :-D It's here Brian; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_302 The second pdf, APA - AstraZeneca is the 42 page contract released by AZ......though heavily redacted. Thank you Paul. I note the redactions include the sums payable as well as the operative dates for delivery, which seems just a little odd. However, apart from the sheer number of words (always a bad sign!! :-)) the question of delivery is subject to the application of "Best Reasonable Efforts", which is in turn described (I'm paraphrasing) as relative to what a firm of similar size, skill, and experience, as AstraZenica might be reasonably expected to employ to meet it obligations under the circumstances of a life threatening global pandemic. The two issues on which AZ seems possibly exposed are a) that by 27 August it was already in contract with the UK government to supply vaccine to the UK, which implies ('though it is not stated) that in signing it had taken this obligation into account, and that it is contractually obliged to report promptly to the EU commission any circumstances that might delay deliveries - which raises the question of whether this was done. However, unless AZ has done something really stupid, given the visible wording of the contract, I'd have thought the EU would be in some difficulty in proving a material breach on their part. However, on present evidence, I'm still inclined to think that the EU are trying to throw a "cloak of invisibility" over their own performance by seeking to place the blame on AZ - by using a megaphone to communicate! This seems a somewhat short-sighted move, as they risk squandering AZ's good will in the process, which is unlikely to help smooth the flow of vaccine, as defensive contractors tend to become very contractual in their subsequent behaviour, wanting all the "i"s dotted and all the "t"s crossed in their own defence. Doubtless we shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-25 5:38 PM Bulletguy - 2021-03-25 2:52 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-25 1:08 PM Barryd999 - 2021-03-25 11:00 AM..................... The funding awarded was on the understanding of a contract once it was ready and delivery of a large vaccine order which AZ have failed to deliver. Has anyone seen this famous EU/AZ contract, which is claimed to be publicly visible on the EU website? It's just that the statement above regarding AZ's "failure to deliver" can only be true if the contract stipulated, without further conditions, a fixed delivery date. Given the uncertainties around development of, and up-scaling production of (including the need to secure deliveries of all the vaccine components from a variety of sources), I'd be amazed if AZ were so stupid as to have entered into a simple, "time of the essence", contract. It must, surely, have contained a number of "best endeavours" clauses? Otherwise, they were stark, staring, bonkers! :-D It's here Brian; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_302 The second pdf, APA - AstraZeneca is the 42 page contract released by AZ......though heavily redacted. Thank you Paul. I note the redactions include the sums payable as well as the operative dates for delivery, which seems just a little odd. I'd like to see what those redactions are....after all that's the work of AZ so what are they hiding from public scrutiny and why? Bottom line is they should honour their contract and it no longer matters which country get's fully vaccinated first, I expect places such Isle of Man, Gibraltar, New Zealand etc, will be getting there as they're only small populations, but what's important now is striving to vaccinate the world......and UK is not 'the world' even though some loops think it revolves around us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 25, 2021 Share Posted March 25, 2021 A interesting interpretation https://guyverhofstadt.medium.com/two-contracts-lots-of-questions-and-not-nearly-enough-vaccines-cf1c2380cf29 It is almost as if AstraZeneca shared the contents of the EU contract with the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-25 8:13 PM A interesting interpretation https://guyverhofstadt.medium.com/two-contracts-lots-of-questions-and-not-nearly-enough-vaccines-cf1c2380cf29 It is almost as if AstraZeneca shared the contents of the EU contract with the UK? From your link ;-) ......... "Also different is the pricing. In both contracts the price is based on the “Cost of Goods”. But while the EU contract contains a fixed figure, the UK contract does not. The price charged in the UK contract will be calculated on an “Open Book Basis”, giving flexibility to AstraZeneca to later include costs that where not initially foreseen. And conversely giving the UK authorities leverage, through the open book method, to oblige AstraZeneca to fulfill its commitments on supply and delivery." Looks to me like Boris is prepared to save the lives of Brits at any cost B-) ........ Where as EU citizens lives are only worth 5 euros ( 2.50 euro a jab ) 8-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebishbus Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 Perhaps the EU should have done what Israel did, pay the greedy vaccine companies way over the top to jump the queue .I believe they paid $23.50 a dose. Brian B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 thebishbus - 2021-03-26 3:28 PM Perhaps the EU should have done what Israel did, pay the greedy vaccine companies way over the top to jump the queue .I believe they paid $23.50 a dose. Brian B. Kinda explains why they will be the first country to have vaccinated their population ;-) ....... Plus why Boris was right to say Greed and Capitalism is the reason why we are next in line along with the USA to achieve the same goal B-) .......... Unlike Dumb Arse Socialist EU countries who are still trying to get their arses in gear *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-26 3:36 PM thebishbus - 2021-03-26 3:28 PM Perhaps the EU should have done what Israel did, pay the greedy vaccine companies way over the top to jump the queue .I believe they paid $23.50 a dose. Brian B. Kinda explains why they will be the first country to have vaccinated their population ;-) ....... Plus why Boris was right to say Greed and Capitalism is the reason why we are next in line along with the USA to achieve the same goal B-) .......... Unlike Dumb Arse Socialist EU countries who are still trying to get their arses in gear *-) ......... What is interesting is that although Israel bought the AstraZeneca vaccine, outside of trials pretty much all their vaccination was with Pfizer and Moderna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 26, 2021 Share Posted March 26, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-26 6:33 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-26 3:36 PM thebishbus - 2021-03-26 3:28 PM Perhaps the EU should have done what Israel did, pay the greedy vaccine companies way over the top to jump the queue .I believe they paid $23.50 a dose. Brian B. Kinda explains why they will be the first country to have vaccinated their population ;-) ....... Plus why Boris was right to say Greed and Capitalism is the reason why we are next in line along with the USA to achieve the same goal B-) .......... Unlike Dumb Arse Socialist EU countries who are still trying to get their arses in gear *-) ......... What is interesting is that although Israel bought the AstraZeneca vaccine, outside of trials pretty much all their vaccination was with Pfizer and Moderna. I wonder why ;-) ............ "Late last year Israel was competing furiously with much larger countries to secure vaccine supplies from global manufacturers as the coronavirus pandemic raged. Now, it finds itself spearheading one of the world’s fastest vaccination drives, with more vaccine — both in-country and en route — than it will use. How did a country with barely 9m citizens persuade companies courting markets with hundreds of millions of potential customers to fill its orders first? The answer lies in 17 conversations between Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chief executive, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, and Yuli Edelstein, the health minister. The two Israeli politicians promised to build one of the fastest vaccination drives in the world and share data on its impact on the pandemic, so long as supplies were plentiful and uninterrupted. Pfizer agreed and the deliveries started by mid-December. “The company will be able to boast about it, to make profit from it and to publicise it,” said Mr Edelstein, in an interview with the Financial Times. “Without this, any company wouldn’t even be looking at our direction — they would be looking for markets a hundred times the size.” https://www.ft.com/content/3aae4345-46cc-4636-a3f9-a93a6762f87f Perhaps that's why the EU are bad mouthing AZ and NOT Pfizer or Moderna for late deliveries ? *-) ......... When you earn billions you can greace a lot of NASTY EU palms >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-25 8:13 PM A interesting interpretation https://guyverhofstadt.medium.com/two-contracts-lots-of-questions-and-not-nearly-enough-vaccines-cf1c2380cf29 It is almost as if AstraZeneca shared the contents of the EU contract with the UK? Interesting. Depends which parts you have in mind. The only parts of a contract that are really "private" are the price, specific quality, and delivery timescale (if time is "of the essence"). Otherwise, most contracts will be in the form of a template of "standard" terms that can quickly be taken from a drawer and used as the basis for negotiating the final terms. There are numerous "standard forms of contract" that are published by various professional bodies, for example. Large public contracts are usually intended to become "open", as they provide evidence on whether public money is being properly spent. Where the secrecy should be maintained is where there is competition through submission of competitive tenders for the work. That secrecy is usually (at last in my experience) abandoned once the winning contractor is appointed, following which the names (in alphabetical order) of, and prices etc. submitted (in order of value) by tenderers are usually circulated to all tenderers, to allow the losers to judge the margin by which their bid had failed. In this case there was no competition as such, just two public organisations negotiating with a single supplier for a vaccine that, when the negotiations began, had not been manufactured, tested, or approved. What is odd is that little is made by Verhofstadt of the time taken by the EMA and the MHRA respectively to grant approval for use of the vaccine. Despite the close dates on the two contracts, if the vaccine had not been approved for use, it would have been no practical advantage to the buyer to take early supplies. Also, it seems supply could not have run much ahead of approval, or the EU should have accumulated an enormous stockpile of vaccine (with use by dates!) pending approval. Maybe that is the explanation for the EU supply problem? We were vaccinating while they were still approving, were we not? I assume the starting point was either a familiar standard form used in the pharmaceutical industry, or one AZ had previously used, that was "tweaked" here and there during negotiations to suit the priorities of the two prospective employing organisations. It seems the UK inserted a few clauses that the EU now rather wishes they had thought of. Guessing, but I suspect Kate Bingham and her team should probably be credited for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-30 12:25 PM It seems the UK inserted a few clauses that the EU now rather wishes they had thought of. Guessing, but I suspect Kate Bingham and her team should probably be credited for that! Is that a chink of light reaching through EU blinkers? 8-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 pelmetman - 2021-03-30 6:41 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-30 12:25 PM It seems the UK inserted a few clauses that the EU now rather wishes they had thought of. Guessing, but I suspect Kate Bingham and her team should probably be credited for that! Is that a chink of light reaching through EU blinkers? 8-) .......... No, its a STOBO (statement of the bleeding obvious). Have you only just realised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-30 7:29 PM pelmetman - 2021-03-30 6:41 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-30 12:25 PM It seems the UK inserted a few clauses that the EU now rather wishes they had thought of. Guessing, but I suspect Kate Bingham and her team should probably be credited for that! Is that a chink of light reaching through EU blinkers? 8-) .......... No, its a STOBO (statement of the bleeding obvious). Have you only just realised? It doesn't seem to have had much affect on your Pro EU views ;-) ......... But then again the Bleedin obvious is wasted on the terminally deluded :D ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laika.brian Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-03-30 12:25 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-25 8:13 PM A interesting interpretation https://guyverhofstadt.medium.com/two-contracts-lots-of-questions-and-not-nearly-enough-vaccines-cf1c2380cf29 It is almost as if AstraZeneca shared the contents of the EU contract with the UK? Interesting. Depends which parts you have in mind. The only parts of a contract that are really "private" are the price, specific quality, and delivery timescale (if time is "of the essence"). Otherwise, most contracts will be in the form of a template of "standard" terms that can quickly be taken from a drawer and used as the basis for negotiating the final terms. There are numerous "standard forms of contract" that are published by various professional bodies, for example. Large public contracts are usually intended to become "open", as they provide evidence on whether public money is being properly spent. Where the secrecy should be maintained is where there is competition through submission of competitive tenders for the work. That secrecy is usually (at last in my experience) abandoned once the winning contractor is appointed, following which the names (in alphabetical order) of, and prices etc. submitted (in order of value) by tenderers are usually circulated to all tenderers, to allow the losers to judge the margin by which their bid had failed. In this case there was no competition as such, just two public organisations negotiating with a single supplier for a vaccine that, when the negotiations began, had not been manufactured, tested, or approved. What is odd is that little is made by Verhofstadt of the time taken by the EMA and the MHRA respectively to grant approval for use of the vaccine. Despite the close dates on the two contracts, if the vaccine had not been approved for use, it would have been no practical advantage to the buyer to take early supplies. Also, it seems supply could not have run much ahead of approval, or the EU should have accumulated an enormous stockpile of vaccine (with use by dates!) pending approval. Maybe that is the explanation for the EU supply problem? We were vaccinating while they were still approving, were we not? I assume the starting point was either a familiar standard form used in the pharmaceutical industry, or one AZ had previously used, that was "tweaked" here and there during negotiations to suit the priorities of the two prospective employing organisations. It seems the UK inserted a few clauses that the EU now rather wishes they had thought of. Guessing, but I suspect Kate Bingham and her team should probably be credited for that! I read somewhere that the main difference between the two contracts is that UK one in English law and the EU one in Belgian law, English law is stronger in that reasonable effort is much more defined in the law where as Belgian law is more on the goodwill of both parties, that is my lay mans discerption. I know which i would have preferred!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 Laika.brian - 2021-03-30 10:28 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-03-30 12:25 PM CurtainRaiser - 2021-03-25 8:13 PM A interesting interpretation https://guyverhofstadt.medium.com/two-contracts-lots-of-questions-and-not-nearly-enough-vaccines-cf1c2380cf29 It is almost as if AstraZeneca shared the contents of the EU contract with the UK? Interesting. Depends which parts you have in mind. The only parts of a contract that are really "private" are the price, specific quality, and delivery timescale (if time is "of the essence"). Otherwise, most contracts will be in the form of a template of "standard" terms that can quickly be taken from a drawer and used as the basis for negotiating the final terms. There are numerous "standard forms of contract" that are published by various professional bodies, for example. Large public contracts are usually intended to become "open", as they provide evidence on whether public money is being properly spent. Where the secrecy should be maintained is where there is competition through submission of competitive tenders for the work. That secrecy is usually (at last in my experience) abandoned once the winning contractor is appointed, following which the names (in alphabetical order) of, and prices etc. submitted (in order of value) by tenderers are usually circulated to all tenderers, to allow the losers to judge the margin by which their bid had failed. In this case there was no competition as such, just two public organisations negotiating with a single supplier for a vaccine that, when the negotiations began, had not been manufactured, tested, or approved. What is odd is that little is made by Verhofstadt of the time taken by the EMA and the MHRA respectively to grant approval for use of the vaccine. Despite the close dates on the two contracts, if the vaccine had not been approved for use, it would have been no practical advantage to the buyer to take early supplies. Also, it seems supply could not have run much ahead of approval, or the EU should have accumulated an enormous stockpile of vaccine (with use by dates!) pending approval. Maybe that is the explanation for the EU supply problem? We were vaccinating while they were still approving, were we not? I assume the starting point was either a familiar standard form used in the pharmaceutical industry, or one AZ had previously used, that was "tweaked" here and there during negotiations to suit the priorities of the two prospective employing organisations. It seems the UK inserted a few clauses that the EU now rather wishes they had thought of. Guessing, but I suspect Kate Bingham and her team should probably be credited for that! I read somewhere that the main difference between the two contracts is that UK one in English law and the EU one in Belgian law, English law is stronger in that reasonable effort is much more defined in the law where as Belgian law is more on the goodwill of both parties, that is my lay mans discerption. I know which i would have preferred!!! Thats correct. The company overestimated how many vaccine doses it could produce — blaming unforeseen production problems. But much to the fury of EU officials it has chosen to honor its British contract, and in Brussels' view, not the deal it struck with the bloc. The vaccine-maker's approach may come down to its reading of the contracts it signed governing delivery of the vaccine: one with the U.K. government under English and Welsh law, and the other with the European Commission (acting on behalf of member states) under Belgian law. Legal experts say that the two jurisdictions interpret contracts very differently, with U.K. courts more conducive to a rapid resolution based on the letter of the document. In addition, the two contracts read very differently — according to experts who have seen them both — with the Commission's document prioritizing a well-meaning push for political/societal unity over a more hard-nosed enforceable agreement. The U.K. has not been so transparent with its own contract, but POLITICO has spoken to people who have seen it, allowing a comparison between the two. It suggests that while both documents have legal bite, the EU document places lofty aspirations above swift enforceability. That may be one reason why, when the company found itself in the position of not having enough vaccines to fulfil its order with the EU, it didn't simply redirect all its doses made in the U.K. to Brussels. https://tinyurl.com/vryj6ux2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-03-31 12:38 PM....................................... The company overestimated how many vaccine doses it could produce — blaming unforeseen production problems. But much to the fury of EU officials it has chosen to honour its British contract, and in Brussels' view, not the deal it struck with the bloc. The vaccine-maker's approach may come down to its reading of the contracts it signed governing delivery of the vaccine: one with the U.K. government under English and Welsh law, and the other with the European Commission (acting on behalf of member states) under Belgian law. Legal experts say that the two jurisdictions interpret contracts very differently, with U.K. courts more conducive to a rapid resolution based on the letter of the document. https://tinyurl.com/vryj6ux2 But, both contracts accept that there might be practical limitations to the ability of the manufacturer to deliver. The key is the use of the term "best endeavours" (or similar) which is an acceptance that events may prevent the scheduled delivery dates being achieved. My understanding of the reason for the delays is that the vaccine requires live components, and that at least one batch may have failed and requires re-testing. I believe there have also been problems with quality at one of the European production facilities, most of which have been adapted, or constructed from scratch, to produce the vaccine. It therefore seems probable that one, or other (or both), of those events would fall, at least under UK contract law, within the concept of "force majeure" (an event over which one party to the contract does not have direct control) which would effectively "set aside" any penalties for failure to fully meet the contract conditions. This was always a high risk venture with many possible uncertainties, so anyone expecting the outcomes to be guaranteed and enforceable under law is being more than a little silly. This is a new product, never previously produced in quantity, reliant on feed-stocks from numerous external sources, and dependent on live components. What could possibly go wrong? That is why both contracts have "get out", or "best endeavours", type clauses. In their absence, I doubt AZ would have entered into contract at all, and the vaccine would not now be available. The only issue on which AZ seem to me exposed is whether they have used their "best endeavours" to the extent that could reasonably be expected of them. After all, "best endeavours" does not mean that the producer can just fold their arms and sit back as soon as a problem arises - they are still obliged to do all that they reasonably can to overcome the difficulty - and, at least in the case of the EU contract (if I remember :-)) - are entitled so seek adjustment to the agreed price should their costs unexpectedly rise in so doing. They are not contractually obliged to produce even at a loss. This is a far cry from spotting a car in a dealer's showroom and saying I want that delivered at the end of next week and here is the cash (money laundering regulations permitting, of course :-D)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 Brian Kirby - 2021-04-01 12:23 PM Bulletguy - 2021-03-31 12:38 PM....................................... The company overestimated how many vaccine doses it could produce — blaming unforeseen production problems. But much to the fury of EU officials it has chosen to honour its British contract, and in Brussels' view, not the deal it struck with the bloc. The vaccine-maker's approach may come down to its reading of the contracts it signed governing delivery of the vaccine: one with the U.K. government under English and Welsh law, and the other with the European Commission (acting on behalf of member states) under Belgian law. Legal experts say that the two jurisdictions interpret contracts very differently, with U.K. courts more conducive to a rapid resolution based on the letter of the document. https://tinyurl.com/vryj6ux2 The only issue on which AZ seem to me exposed is whether they have used their "best endeavours" to the extent that could reasonably be expected of them. IMO I don't believe they have and should have honoured their contract. Had the shenanigans been the other way round UK would have been fuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtainRaiser Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 My working life was plagued by various endeavors clause, one of which was settled at the doors to the Court. (Parasiteman will be pleased to hear it involved £3 million of European funding.) This is one of the clearest explanations I have come across, although I'm not sure what the Belgian version is. https://www.burges-salmon.com/news-and-insight/legal-updates/understanding-endeavours-clauses-best-reasonable-and-all-reasonable/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 1, 2021 Share Posted April 1, 2021 Bulletguy - 2021-04-01 1:29 PM Brian Kirby - 2021-04-01 12:23 PM Bulletguy - 2021-03-31 12:38 PM....................................... The company overestimated how many vaccine doses it could produce — blaming unforeseen production problems. But much to the fury of EU officials it has chosen to honour its British contract, and in Brussels' view, not the deal it struck with the bloc. The vaccine-maker's approach may come down to its reading of the contracts it signed governing delivery of the vaccine: one with the U.K. government under English and Welsh law, and the other with the European Commission (acting on behalf of member states) under Belgian law. Legal experts say that the two jurisdictions interpret contracts very differently, with U.K. courts more conducive to a rapid resolution based on the letter of the document. https://tinyurl.com/vryj6ux2 The only issue on which AZ seem to me exposed is whether they have used their "best endeavours" to the extent that could reasonably be expected of them. IMO I don't believe they have and should have honoured their contract. Had the shenanigans been the other way round UK would have been fuming. Dunno! :-D We'll have to wait to see what transpires. All I'll add is that two things are in dispute. First the quantity being delivered, and second, the timings of those deliveries relative to the (redacted) dates written into the contract. If the quantities are being limited by availability of vaccine components, and no alternative sources are available at any price that would allow quantities to be increased, it is difficult to see what AZ could be expected to do. Much the same applies to arguments around timing of deliveries. In either case, if suitable alternatives are available, but only at increased cost then, providing AZ can satisfy the EU that accepting the additional cost is the only way out, AZ is entitled, under the contract as I read it, to seek EU agreement to the added cost. Then, if the EU were to refuse to meet the extra cost they would, IMO, be limiting AZ's ability to meet their obligations within the terms of the contract - bearing in mind that the agreement is that AZ will supply the vaccine at cost and so are not contractually obliged to incur loss in fulfilling the contract. OTOH, if the delays are due to factors that AZ could have avoided, for example, by placing orders at an earlier date, or similar, then they would IMO be in the firing line. However, if it went to court, the outcome would be likely to revolve around what the court considered a reasonable interpretation of AZ's obligations - having regard to circumstances at the time - and doubtless to a load of further detail of which none of us can be aware. Overall, I suspect it won't go to court, because it appears that if the various get out clauses are taken into account, doing so would be largely a waste of time and public money. They need to work together, which is to me the implied spirit of the agreement, to solve the problems, not to conduct a circular legal firing squad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.