2021...

[embee]

A contract is a contract.
If a supplier cannot fulfill the T&Cs then they don't sign it. Unless a contract says "we promise to complete the contract unless someone else has already beaten you to it, which they have, so we won't" then they are bound by the terms.
If there was already a clause within the UK contract which meant it was foreseeable that the EU contract could not be fulfilled, I would have thought it should have been declared before signature.
There were dates within the T&Cs which were redacted, so we don't know what was agreed regarding scheduling.
Bear in mind the EU contract was signed on 14th August, nearly 6 months ago, so not exactly last minute.
Unless we see what the UK contract says, it'll simply be a case of denial or obfuscation.

On the subject of "late approval" of the AZ vaccine by the EU, an authority can only approve something if the manufacturer has submitted it for approval. Ongoing review had been in place since October. It appears that AZ submitted to the EU on 12th Jan 2021 http://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/az...accine_1361150

[Seeker]

This link is interesting inasmuch it shows the power of big Pharma in negotiating deals and insisting parts of contracts are redacted.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/governmen...130813221.html
(it's on yahoo but is from New York Times)

[Ruffy]

It's an intriguing situation.

I don't think order of contract signing matters - all contracts need to be fulfilled, it's not 'first come first served'. However, it wouldn't be the first time a supplier has taken a risk on upscaling its manufacturing capability (i.e. knowing that it will need need to build more factory capacity in order to be able to fulfill order commitments it is making and hoping that it gets built in time.)

If AZ really is in a pickle and has to risk being sued for breach of one of its contracts, then it will likely choose based on which is the lowest estimated 'loss'. Why supply on time to EU if they can't use it because it's not approved? In that instance where is the actual loss from non-supply?

Embee makes a good point that approval may have been somehow dependent on intial supply, so it's far from clear cut. Without the supply dates detail from the contracts and working through the whole contract in detail, it's difficult to tell for sure.

I'm deeply suspicious, though. On the face of it, this is a contract disagreement between a buyer and a seller - Why argue so publicly if it's not smoke-and-mirrors or motivated by something other than the stated problem? If you have a slam-dunk case then just show it the other party so they realise they must change their stance, or just take them to Court. Shouting and stamping feet in a tantrum is what toddlers do!

Sadly I think this is largely politically driven: EU bureaucrats trying to create a shield to protect themselves from (possibly legitimate) accusation of poor administration (either from residents who feel they are not being well served because vaccines are coming through too slowly, or from member countries who feel they have been let down after committing to EU-arranged group-buy deal, or both), and possibly trying to create an anti-UK issue to boot in order to stop other member states wondering if the EU arrangement is highly flawed.*

Back closer to original topic, it's a shame that this will likely have the effect of perpetuating lockdown longer into 2021 (but I guess that was always a risk with the 'eggs-in-one-basket' strategy of 'develop a vaccine' to manage the situation).


(* Not an attempt to derail into a Brexit debate!)

[embee]

I believe what prompted the whole debacle was that AZ told the EU that they would be reducing the initial delivery (ref. contract) by 60% (that's reduce BY 60%, not to 60%) for the first quarter of 2021.
https://www.pmlive.com/pharma_news/a...the_eu_1361854
I imagine most partners in a contract of this sort at this time would accept a reasonable reduction, but 60% is pretty dramatic, and the reason cited was reduced production yield at a European manufacturing site. This is what led to the assertion that the contract did not allow discrimination between EU and UK based manufacturing sites regarding supply (as per contract section 5.4) and the UK sites were still producing and supplying the UK.
Whether both contracts infer equal priority depends to some extent what is in the UK contract, but there was no indication (as far as I an see) within the EU contract that they would play second fiddle so to speak (probably covered in section 13.1e of the APA, possibly elsewhere).
It certainly sounds like the UK contract has a priority clause, supply the UK before anyone else. Whether this is the case remains to be seen, and the morality of such a clause feels questionable.
In view of how many drugs etc come from the EU (e.g. insulin) I can't help feeling a hornets' nest is being poked. Of course UK media will paint the EU as the protagonists, whether they are or not is open to debate and remains to be seen. It feels a lot more messy to me.
I'm sure the UK will still expect the contracted supply schedule from Pfizer to be honoured.

Edit - PS - the actions of the EU Commission to even mention Article 16 of the Good Friday Agreement relating to any sort of export control was a stupid thing to do, don't even think of going there. What numpty would do that? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1783221.html