It appears that although neither AZ or EU are willing to publish the contract, the EU has, recently, published a copy of the contract with another vaccine supplier. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that the EU tried to make the supply contracts as similar as they could. Here’s a summary from a specialist in contract law, published in The Spectator
“We don't know precisely what the contract between AstraZeneca and EU member states says. But the EU did publish another vaccine supply contract here.
All this makes it very difficult to see what case the EU has. In any would-be-case involving this contract, the EU has two massive hurdles to jump. Firstly, contractors undertake to use their 'reasonable best efforts' to manufacture enough supply. On Page 10, we see that is further limited, because it is defined as:
'a reasonable degree of best effort to accomplish a given task, acknowledging … the timely availability of raw materials, inventories and liquid funds; yield of process; the … contractor's commitments to other purchasers of the Product … and any other currently unknown factors which may delay or render impossible, contractor's successful completion of the particular task'
To win a case, the EU has to show that the other side didn’t act with a reasonable degree of best effort. All a contractor need do is show that delay is caused by either a shortage of ingredients, lower yield from a batch, or the fact the contractor is already under a different contract to supply doses to a different country.”
www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-vaccine-row-shows-the-eu-doesn-t-understand-contract-law
|