Yesterday, I reported on countries wanting to cancel the contracts with which they bought all those vaccines.
However, cancellation of a contract is nowhere near as easy as it looks. The countries have an obligation to take what they ordered: pacta sunt servanda.
Now they found an ominous clause in the contracts. Allegedly, it says something about a second vaccination being necessary. That is total news to me; I never heard anything of two vaccinations. It seems like now everybody is extremely busy trying to find arguments that might improve the (basically hopeless) situation on the negotiation front with the suppliers, such as the pharmaceutical concern GlaxoSmithKline?
Our politicians are clever. They also try applying sneaky psychological methods. For instance, it is now publicly said that we set our hope on the goodwill of the producers. After all, a public show of goodwill will be beneficial for the reputation of the pharmaceutical enterprises!?
The suppliers will not be very impressed by this kind of strategy. They will simply do the mathematics. Their goodwill will basically depend on whether or not other parties will be interested in the vaccine. If so, part of the price will be kept as cancellation fee from the former buyer and the product will be sold to someone else. Otherwise, they will insist that the contract is met and delivery will not be expected. As a token of goodwill, the supplier will see to the disposal of the substance. In both cases, they will profit nicely.
In this otherwise so totally pre-planned world, why did nobody bother to make a forecast before ordering all these vaccinations? After all, the hesitant attitude towards the vaccination among the population was predictable. All polls showed the same tendencies.
It might also have been a good idea to first order a small amount and then keep the option open for more. But no, as always, much ado was made about ordering the maximum supply, and when it is too late, they start thinking.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...