Pfizer is tripping over its arguments
These lawsuits are revelatory.
Pfizer is contradicting itself between the Brook Jackson case and the Kansas case.
1. Contract Conditions:
· In Kansas case: Pfizer claims the contract had multiple "specific terms for Pfizer's performance" and various contractual conditions.
· In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed the contract had only "a single condition of payment: Pfizer's delivery of an FDA authorized or approved vaccine for COVID-19."
2. Statement of Work Requirements:
· In Kansas case: Pfizer argues there were many contractual obligations in the Statement of Work.
· In Jackson case: Pfizer specifically rejected the "allegation that the [Statement of Work] somehow tied payment to Pfizer's compliance with every particular of the clinical protocol or related FDA regulations" as "mistaken and refuted by the [Statement of Work] itself."
3. Clinical Trials:
· In Kansas case: Pfizer suggests clinical trials were part of contractual requirements.
· In Jackson case: Pfizer stated that the Statement of Work "states explicitly that Pfizer's 'clinical trials' are 'out-of-scope,' 'not related' to the agreement, and that the relevant studies were undertaken at Pfizer's expense 'without the use of Government funding.'"
4. Contract Clarity:
· In Kansas case: Pfizer argues for complex contractual obligations.
· In Jackson case: Pfizer claimed "the agreement is crystal clear" that delivery was the only contract condition.
Kansas could raise the doctrine of judicial estoppel meaning a party cannot just change a position to gain advantage when you asserted a different position in a prior case. The test is simple:
Clear contradiction in positions.
To gain tactical advantages in different courts.
Holding Pfizer accountable for its position would protect judicial integrity.
The documents are good reading:
Superb. Contradictions abound.
Delicious.