Taser procurement in the face of fundamental disagreement

As was reported in the previous post [LINK], the Maryland Attorney General has concluded that tasers can kill, and should therefore be treated as dangerous weapons.

Taser International strongly disagrees.

How on Earth can procurement of tasers be permitted to continue between a buyer that has formally concluded that taser are capable of causing death, and a vender that continues to deny that tasers can kill?

Procurement contracts are based on a description of the product. By any rational measure, there has to be a common understanding of the primary characteristics of the product - for example, if a weapon is potentially lethal or not.

If there exists a clear disagreement on such a fundamental characteristic, then it is insanity to permit procurement to continue in such circumstances.

The problems that will inevitably arise are real. It's not just Contract Law theory.

For example, if a vender supplies tires to the state. And the vendor claimed that these tires would never, never-ever, skid. State employees believed the claims, and the rate of vehicle crashes increased. Employees die in violent crashes (always on curved roads). Memos are issued. Procurement continues. Internal battles break out. Vendor blames "excited driving" and maintains the lie that his tires never skid. More folks die. Lawsuits. Vendor manufactures studies that "prove" his tires simply will not skid, even at 750 miles per hour into a hairpin turn. Lawsuits are thrown out. Vendor become cocky. State tries to gain control of the driving schools to control the message. Vendor website still claims skid-free tire technology. It spirals into endless lawsuits - all because the Procurement Department turned a blind eye.

You've been warned.