Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrtksn | Hacker News Reader

It's specifically stated in the contract that the UK facilities are covered. It's literally written in plain English, like you can read it from the document(the black markings on the white background). The continental facilities not getting online is irrelevant.

View on HN

Would "best reasonable efforts" generally include breaking of stronger worded contacts signed earlier? The UK contract was more along the lines of "you can partner with Oxford to get their IP and we'll help set up production lines on the condition we get first refusal of vaccines from those lines"

We can agree that indeed this should be demanded.

However, I ask again, why is no media outlet questioning our representatives about why they burned 3 months of people dying, to then come up with essentially the same terms as the unilateral contracts that the Dutch and the French were initially drafting?

This isn't a contract to squeeze the best deal out of AZN, it is an emergency purchase, what was there to negotiate?

AFAIK this is not correct, they negotiated on stuff like liability. Not price.

For 3 whole months though? This isn't a 20 year down the line trade agreement it's a medical emergency.

I don't think that it has anything to do with deliveries. They were not shipping vaccines when EU was negotiating the liability stuff. Instead, they put it on the contract that both UK and EU facilities are to be used and no other contracts to prevent EU's deliveries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com