Yes. My point (which your observation is relevant to) was that at 13(e)

AZ has given a warranty that they have not entered into any other contracts that conflicts with or impedes their ability to comply with their obligations.

On the fact of it, a contract which gives the UK exclusive or priority use of vaccines manufactured in the UK could fall into that category so i saw that as AZ's weak spot in terms of contractual liability. However, if the UK contract is with the UK company then that may get them out of that particularly sticky patch.

Fundamentally, in legal terms, it still comes down to the "Best reasonable efforts" point and what that might require in these particular circumstances.

I agree, its all rather unsavoury but by the same token it irks me that the UK us being blamed here or painted as the bad guy when this is a contractual dispute beteen the EU and AZ and we haven;t really done anything wrong here as far as I can see. This is the EU trying to bully AZ into some kind of negotiated settlement and us being dragged into it.

If, as seems likely, the EU only approves this vaccine for under 65's then to my mind that just weakens their argument because at the moment its being deployed in the UK to those who are statistically the most vulnerable although I appreciate that there will be under 65s in the EU who have health conditions that render them vulnerable.

Posted By: Jim, Jan 29, 14:34:03