4 ms·

They failed to deliver and respect the contract with the EU. This and what their CEO said about the differences in contracts between UK and EU (timing and best

by frafra 5y ago

They failed to deliver and respect the contract with the EU. This and what their CEO said about the differences in contracts between UK and EU (timing and best efforts - while the differences did not justify the different treatment). They cared so little about PR that some science communicators (like Burioni in Italy) stopped to defend the AZ vaccine because of the total lack of statements and communications from AZ, even if they have a positive opinion about the vaccine itself.

hef19898 5y ago
Well, my interpretation is that AZ did, in fact, not violate the EU contract. The contract states "best effort", not penalties and even redemnifies AZ from delivery delays in case these delays are caused by additional orders from the EU. And guess what the EU did, IMHO mainly to media and public pressure, earlier this year. Given the bad press AZ got, reverting to a "no comment" strategy is not such a bad idea. Anything they say will be used against them anyway.
- frafra 5y ago
  "Best effort" has a specific meaning in a contract, which is different from everyday use; this is why AZ could still be found in violation of the contract. This does not change the fact they have been unable to deliver by a huge margin and informed the UE with a short notice. A company that just avoid commenting on issues your product could have or misinformation regarding it does not seem a company that cares about that. Hard for me that they had a good PR strategy.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    I wrote drafts and analyzed procurement contracts for smaller volumes and less critical parts before. Of course with legal support. And all these contracts included initial delivery schedules (as an annex), delivery SLAs and penalties. And they were all considerably longer than the AZ contractthat was published. Fun fact, they didn't sacrifice 5 pages to talk about the order form. The AZ contract has none of that. Ultimately, it would need a court to decide that. Once the point of discusing contract terms, the relation ship between supplier and customer is already ruined.
    - frafra 5y ago
      Good :) So you know what the contract and "best effort" mean and the kind of forces driving both parties. "customer is already ruined": that is why they would probably EU will not go to a court but it just ordered 50 M vaccines from Pfizer, while rumours of the EU not renewing the contract with AZ are getting stronger (some EU/EEA countries have plans to move forward without it). I just see a bad behaviour and PR from AZ. That and having a CEO that says that UK got it first because of the "best effort" clause when both UK and EU contracts have does not seem very professional to me IMHO. I am not sure why that happened.

by frafra 5y ago

hef19898 5y ago

Well, my interpretation is that AZ did, in fact, not violate the EU contract. The contract states "best effort", not penalties and even redemnifies AZ from delivery delays in case these delays are caused by additional orders from the EU. And guess what the EU did, IMHO mainly to media and public pressure, earlier this year. Given the bad press AZ got, reverting to a "no comment" strategy is not such a bad idea. Anything they say will be used against them anyway.

frafra 5y ago
"Best effort" has a specific meaning in a contract, which is different from everyday use; this is why AZ could still be found in violation of the contract. This does not change the fact they have been unable to deliver by a huge margin and informed the UE with a short notice. A company that just avoid commenting on issues your product could have or misinformation regarding it does not seem a company that cares about that. Hard for me that they had a good PR strategy.
- hef19898 5y ago
  I wrote drafts and analyzed procurement contracts for smaller volumes and less critical parts before. Of course with legal support. And all these contracts included initial delivery schedules (as an annex), delivery SLAs and penalties. And they were all considerably longer than the AZ contractthat was published. Fun fact, they didn't sacrifice 5 pages to talk about the order form. The AZ contract has none of that. Ultimately, it would need a court to decide that. Once the point of discusing contract terms, the relation ship between supplier and customer is already ruined.
  - frafra 5y ago
    Good :) So you know what the contract and "best effort" mean and the kind of forces driving both parties. "customer is already ruined": that is why they would probably EU will not go to a court but it just ordered 50 M vaccines from Pfizer, while rumours of the EU not renewing the contract with AZ are getting stronger (some EU/EEA countries have plans to move forward without it). I just see a bad behaviour and PR from AZ. That and having a CEO that says that UK got it first because of the "best effort" clause when both UK and EU contracts have does not seem very professional to me IMHO. I am not sure why that happened.