Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I'd expect the CEO of a company to defend their position robustly. I'd be reluctant to necessarily take that at face value especially when a customer says the opposite.
Equally, the customer have a public relations interest in robustly defending their position.
I don't really see the complexity here - the contracts either say one thing or they don't. But let's distract people in the meantime waving some flags.
---------- Post added at 11:56 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------
As the EU say, they're not in a queue down the butchers. AZ have contracts that if they clearly present prioritisation and acknowledge risks to supply are sound.
Agreeing to supply at cost is particularly problematic if there are penalties linked to being unable to supply elsewhere. Very quickly your financial considerations swing to that customer if your contracts haven't covered yourself.
|
Penalities? You're making it up as you go along, aren't you.
If you sign a contract with X saying you will deliver by a certain date, Y cannot come along and say "our delivery that is due 7 months later, comes first".
May 2020.
Quote:
Meanwhile, Oxford University signed a global licensing agreement with AstraZeneca for the manufacturing and commercialisation of their vaccine candidate. If the vaccine is successful, AstraZeneca will produce up to 30 million doses by September for people in the UK.
The agreement is for the pharmaceutical company to deliver a total of 100 million doses.
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.”
|
As the AZ vaccine is supplied at cost, the EU placing an order back in May would seem a bit of a no-brainer, but they didn't do it. Nothing else was likely to be cheaper.