English to Polish Law/Patents Law (general) postępowanie arbitrażowe

The replacement of the allegedly defective tyre by a new one would mean that XXX should have had new tyres in stock, ideally a set of two, in order to prevent any production stoppage due to a potentially defective tyre. Probably aware of the weakness of its position, XXX sustains that the fact that it did have any new replacement tyre when the alleged damage occurred is attributable to YYY. This argument is contradicted by the facts. Indeed, it can be inferred from the above mentioned history of orders that XXX ordered tyres from YYY in November 2010, whereas the previous order was delivered in May 2009, ie 18 months before, which would tend to show that at that time, XXX had an adequate tyre management and had a stock of new tyres. On the contrary, in October 2012, it appears that XXX had absolutely no replacement tyre. Indeed, in addition to the fact that XXX had to replace the allegedly defective tyre by a used tyre, it should be underlined that while a new set was ordered in May 2012 with a planned delivery in January 2013, XXX ordered a new set in October 2012 with a planned delivery in March 2013. Furthermore, YYY wishes to underline that, unlike what XXX sustains, there had been absolutely no delay in the delivery of the other new tyre that XXX had ordered on May 22 2012. Indeed the contractual time for delivery was of 6 months outside August, beginning from the date of the receipt of the order’s provisional payment that occurred on June 12 2012. The time for delivery was therefore January 12 2013.

kontekst: postępowanie arbitrażowe

Nie wiem skąd nagle pojawia się tutaj sierpień i co dokładnie znaczy "outside August". Żadne zamówienie, ani dostawa nie ma miejsca ani 6 miesięcy przed ani 6 miesięcy po sierpniu...