Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Incorrect.
The UK is included in a clause designed to govern where AstraZeneca is *allowed* to produce vaccine for the EU, without further written permission from the EU. AZ is obliged to use its best effort to make the vaccine inside the EU, not outside it. It is a clause designed to ensure they didn't just go off and make it all in a factory in America, or Brazil or wherever.
Furthermore, Section 5.4 limits the definition of EU as including UK, to itself only. It is absolutely explicit on that point. The purpose of the clause is to permit AZ to choose to use UK production facilities without needing additional permission first. The clause does not have the intention of naming existing UK facilities, that are already engaged in fulfilling another contract, as being co-opted to the EU contract. That is why AstraZeneca has in good faith given assurances that it has no other commitments that stand in the way of the fulfilling of the EU contract - because there aren't any.
The EU may bleat that it doesn't believe in first come, first served, but if it comes to having this contract read in court, the prior existence of a contract with HMG, committing UK facilities to UK production, will be of material interest.
|
Both 5.1 and 5.4 refer to "Best Reasonable Efforts" to manufacture in the EU. 5.4 is labelled "Manufacturing sites" and includes the UK as being included in the definition of an "EU manufacturing site". You can't really have a different definition of "EU manufacturing site" in one paragraph, to the rest of the document.
13.1 is where AZ said no other agreement "would impede the complete fulfillment of its obligations under this Agreement;". Supplying the UK and other countries, effectively "impedes" fulfilling the EU order.