> What I wrote is a composite of a number of lawyer's comments on Twitter
A moment there I was worried my reading comprehension was failing me, thankfully none of the link you posted so authoritatively talk about section 5. They are mostly about down payments. Stop pretending you are posting a summary of things when you are talking about something else.
> It seems likely to me that (when taken in context of the rest of the contract) this actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. The most bullet-proof way that AstraZeneca could comply with this section is by segregating production of vaccines by country.
And what seems likely to you would be wrong. The contract says the opposite of what you are writing.
> I think the EU reading this as saying "there is no contract between AstraZeneca and the UK" is absolutely nonsensical since the UK's purchase order was widely publicised way before the EU signed
The EU experts wrote the contract. They don't have reading comprehension issue. AstraZeneca signed that their contract with the UK didn't contain conflicting obligations.
> AstraZeneca gave away EU doses to the UK
There are no EU doses and UK doses. AstraZeneca is manufacturing doses from different plants and has contractual obligations with multiple clients. The EU thinks their deliveries were mismanaged.
> A moment there I was worried my reading comprehension was failing me, thankfully none of the link you posted so authoritatively talk about section 5.
Everybody I posted has spoken about Section 5. Additionally at least one spoke about it in a link I posted. Your reading comprehension is failing you.
> The EU experts wrote the contract.
Interesting if true, but please source. I heard that it was Belgian Law.
In case you didn't notice, Belgium is part of the EU. The EU is not a jurisdiction for contract law. The contract will obviously have to rely on the law of one of the EU member state, here Belgium as it's where the comission is located.
> Interesting if true, but please source. I heard that it was Belgian Law.
EU commercial contracts are all drafted by EU civil servants i.e. EU experts. How do you think the EU works (apparently you don't have much idea)?
I replied inelegantly but my point was that, just because a contract is written in a country within the EU, it doesn't mean that the Commission's understanding of Belgian law is correct. The way you wrote "it was written by EU experts" implied that the law would necessarily side with the EU because of this -- you almost implied that it was written by the same people kicking up fuss. That isn't the case.
As I linked to earlier in the thread, the first Belgian lawyer I saw tweeting about the contract wrote "I cannot conclude that the Commission has [...] the right on its side. Quite the contrary." [0]
Another legal expert also recently wrote "[The European Commission appears to be wrong] Belgian lawyers so far seem to agree with this analysis." [1]
Finally, this Belgian lawyer also agrees [2] and gives more detail about why. He explains that "we have a classic distinction between obligations to achieve a result ("result") and obligations to use efforts ("means")" and that "using "best efforts", "reasonable efforts" or any other effort standard simply refers to an obligation of means".
I will not be the judge of this but I can say that I've yet to see a Belgian legal expert claiming anything like what you have. When you can't find a single expert to support your position that should be a red flag.
A moment there I was worried my reading comprehension was failing me, thankfully none of the link you posted so authoritatively talk about section 5. They are mostly about down payments. Stop pretending you are posting a summary of things when you are talking about something else.
> It seems likely to me that (when taken in context of the rest of the contract) this actually proves the opposite of what you're saying. The most bullet-proof way that AstraZeneca could comply with this section is by segregating production of vaccines by country.
And what seems likely to you would be wrong. The contract says the opposite of what you are writing.
> I think the EU reading this as saying "there is no contract between AstraZeneca and the UK" is absolutely nonsensical since the UK's purchase order was widely publicised way before the EU signed
The EU experts wrote the contract. They don't have reading comprehension issue. AstraZeneca signed that their contract with the UK didn't contain conflicting obligations.
> AstraZeneca gave away EU doses to the UK
There are no EU doses and UK doses. AstraZeneca is manufacturing doses from different plants and has contractual obligations with multiple clients. The EU thinks their deliveries were mismanaged.