Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About slawek

  • Rank
    HPC Senior Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My original post was about claims made by Hancock and the EU, contracts are irrelevant here. I am not trying to validate their claims against contracts. I was asking about opinion which of those statements is false a) the UK has exclusivity - made by Hancock b) AZ said they are not under any obligation conflicting with the EU order - made by the EU
  2. Not true. The UK and the EU supply chains share sites, one site in the UK and one in Netherlands. The UK site was approved by EMA in January, the Dutch one a few days ago (the delays was caused by AZ not submitting application). The existence "Britain first" obligation was claimed by Sharma in May 2020. "This will mean the UK will be the first country to get access to the vaccine, should it be successful." If you prefer I can use Hancock term "the UK exclusivity". As I said before I am interested who is telling the truth. This has no practical implications, mostly theoretica
  3. Some capacity has been built up (sites in the UK and the EU exist and can produce vaccine) but, if Hancock is right, the UK has some exclusivity over a part of this capacity.
  4. 1) Hancock statement "the UK has exclusivity (over AZ UK production)" and the AZ statement "not being under any obligation to other parties that would impede to complete the fulfillment of its obligations (to the EU)" conflict. "The UK exclusivity over AZ UK production" is clearly an AZ obligation that impedes the fulfillment of the EU order because a) it is an AZ obligation and b) it impedes the fulfillment of the EU order, AZ cannot deliver any doses to the EU from the UK sites even if that would definitely help AZ fulfill the EU order 2) You are saying then that Hannock c
  5. The "Britain first" obligation is going to (it has already) impeded the EU order fulfillment. BRE applies to building manufacturing capacity, not to delivery of doses when the capacity is built. "WHEREAS, as part of that scale-up, AstraZeneca has committed to use its Best Reasonable Efforts (as defined below) to build capacity to manufacture 300 million Doses of the Vaccine"
  6. Two points 1) my post was not about if AZ actions breach some contract. My question was, taking into account two conflicting statements, who is most likely lying the EU, AZ or the UK? 2) (digression addressing your point) the EU/AZ contract contains a clause, in which AZ warrants that there is no conflicting obligations. The existence of the Britain first clause it is a direct breach the EU/AZ contract. In a general case, without any specific clauses in contracts, an existence of other customer is not a breach of the contract itself, however the fact that the order has not been fulf
  7. But you are making statements. You should at least try to justify them best you can. Otherwise what you post has no bearing.
  8. That is a quite ridiculous explanation. You claim is that AZ didn't impeded the contract fulfillment because it meant something else than it was written in the contract. 🤦‍♂️ Using this logic Pfizer should delay delivery of the vaccine to the UK because it should be obvious to everyone that since Germany paid quite a lot of money for the BionNTech/Pfizer production in Germany they should have a priority over anyone else.
  9. Hancock statement "the UK has exclusivity (over AZ UK production)" and the AZ statement "not being under any obligation to other parties that would impede to complete the fulfillment of its obligations (to the EU)" cannot be both true regardless of the contract details. If you disagree please provide an example how those two statements can be true at the same time.
  10. The full impact of Brexit is still to be experienced. There are many grace periods in place (e.g. checks on imports from the EU) and decisions to be made by the EU (e.g. financial service access to the EU market).
  11. Sorry you are simply talking rubbish. 1) The UK sites would have to deliver 100m doses for the UK instantly with 100% certainty for the UK contract not to have any negative impact on the EU contract. Not physically possible. 2) The AZ statement was made recently (before AZ delivered the UK order) and exclusivity given to the UK has already negatively impacted the EU order. We know for sure (as it is a past event) that the UK contract impeded the EU contract fulfillment.
  12. I quoted what Hancock said exactly. I agree he probably meant the exclusivity on the UK production but we don't know that for sure. It prevents AZ fulfilling the EU contract. AZ cannot supply the EU from the UK sites even if they are explicitly listed in the contract. It is a constraint restricting supplies to the EU. I am abstracting here if such supply would be material.
  13. There were claims that the UK would get a better deal with the US than one while being in the EU.
  14. I am not talking about contracts. This is a just pure logical question. You have two statements a) H says Y b) E says AZ said not Y which cannot be both true If Y is true H lies. If Y is false, either E lies (AZ didn't say not Y) or AZ lies
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.