Vaccines: More on contracts.

The reaction of the Italian mainstream press, when it comes to the vaccine issue, seems to be to say that, in some way, it is "a matter of contracts" because according to them if the contract does not oblige a supplier to sell you things, then the supplier will not. And then other nonsense about prices. Let's try to understand why this is all nonsense .

The nonsense that vaccines are lacking "because the contract is not binding enough" does not hold. What does it mean?

Imagine you have a supplier. What do I know, the baker. You go to the baker and he doesn't sell you bread because he is not bound to do so. Is it legal? Yes, it's legal. The baker himself is not bound to provide you with bread. Is it likely? No. For one simple reason: the baker's shop has AS AIM that of selling bread to customers. It makes money. And he lives there.

To blame the contracts is absurd, because it is assumed that these pharmaceutical companies work in order NOT to sell the vaccine, and if the contract is weak then they do not miss the opportunity not to sell, exposing themselves to the risk that another supplier (so far there are 4 for Europe) sells in their place.

Claiming that the supplier works NOT to sell is already delusional in itself, and simply shows how little journalists (including the Corriere's "libberists") understand the market.

But let's go ahead, because at this point the average cazzaro comes out and tells me that since the EU has decided to pay little for vaccines, then the suppliers prefer to sell to others.

If we were in the USSR, it could work. Because that's where the state decided the price. But on the market it works differently.

AstraZeneca was the FIRST contract signed, at most the second. In that clearly inelastic market situation (we NEED the vaccine), according to these genes, the EU would have made the price. Which is obviously an idiocy: in these conditions of monopoly / oligopoly, without elasticity because we need the vaccine, it is ALWAYS the supplier who sets the price.

And then, suppose the price was too low: first of all one wonders what prompted the supplier to sign the contract. Did they put a gun to his head? Did they threaten your family? Horse head in bed?

At the time of signing the contracts, I remember, we were in the situation where TWO pharmaceutical companies had the product, and the customer ardently desired it, like the rest of the world: in these conditions, it is NEVER the customer who makes the price, but the supplier. .

Anyone who says otherwise has a bust of Lenin in the ass. Point.

I've heard of other cazzologists saying things like "but the contract was made in Belgian law, which is based on trust in others".

That Belgians are confident about others I learn today, but it seems that everyone is Belgian trust experts. What I can say is that in Belgium there are quite large companies, like Philips and others:

it seems difficult to think that financial or insurance giants live by making contracts on trust, and since I also see a commodities (mining) company and a pharmaceutical company, all this naivety in their right I would not take it for granted. When we talk about finance and commodities we are talking about the worst sharks the world knows.

Others have learned a new word, "best efforts", and interpret it in the Italian way: since in the Italian courts the meaning of the terms can be discussed, then they do not know that there are so-called "juridical dictionaries" abroad. For example, there is https://www.merriam-webster.com/ , which is one of the most famous and used throughout the Anglo-Saxon world. For example, if you talked about "best efforts" in an American contract you might have some surprises:

You understand that proving that AstraZeneca falls within this definition of "best" efforts becomes catastrophic. Even in Canada, things are no better:

Again, AstraZeneca would be in a bit of shit.

And if the contract is in English, it refers to an Anglo-Saxon legal dictionary: in addition to the two mentioned above, we can go to Oxford:

It is not a question, as the Project Managers of Milan believe, of "I do what I can", but of "I do ALL I CAN". And from this point of view, having sold 34 million doses documented at the borders abroad, it would not seem to be the case with AstraZeneca. Good faith is also implied in all dictionaries, as you see, and AstraZeneca doesn't seem to be the case.

This they read "best effort", they called their friend Gianpiernaik from Milan who is a PM, and they made a whole jerk for which AstraZeneca would not have promised anything. Bales.

At this point, the cazzologists object that "yes, but if others pay more then it is obvious that AstraZeneca will sell to them". Good. But this is a conjecture. For it to become a FACT you would have to show me that the more you pay the vaccines come.

Three EU countries (Hungary, Denmark, Austria) have now decided to go it alone and buy vaccines. Does anyone show me that by offering higher figures they have obtained vaccines from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, J&J?

It does not seem: apparently contacts are taking place with China and Russia, which are not exactly in the Anglo-Saxon orbit.

On all this, then, there is also another problem: all these arguments take it for granted that we are talking about civil law. But the death toll is very high, which has a criminal profile.

In a CRIMINAL trial, "best efforts" does not have the same meaning as in civil ones (in the sense that there is probably no concept of "best efforts not to rob a bank"), and therefore all these arguments could also melt like snow in the sun: in a criminal trial it is assessed whether someone has contributed to the death of someone, knowingly or not, in a cause-and-effect relationship, and in the civil law of northern Europe often negligence is not extenuating (as in Italy when it is speaks of "negligent but not malicious") but becomes an aggravating circumstance, especially if the contract is in English and reference is made to English legal dictionaries.

So I'm sorry: it's a clear continental blockade.

Think about it: there is a problem of cowardice, which prevents you from thinking such a thing as "we have an enemy and we have to fight".