Allerex Laboratory Ltd. v. Dey Laboratories L.P.

Allerex Laboratory Ltd. v. Dey Laboratories L.P.

The May 10, 1993 letter was ambiguous on whether it created a binding contract and the ambiguity dealt with factual matters (historical dealings, industry practice, and subsequent conduct) that could not be resolved on summary judgment; therefore summary judgment dismissing Allerex's claim was improper and the dispute must proceed to trial. The respondents' alternative grounds for summary judgment likewise raised factual and credibility issues and could not be resolved summarily.

Citation
C41465
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/respondent by Way of Cross Appeal: Allerex Laboratory Ltd.; Defendants/respondents/appellants by Way of Cross Appeal: Dey Laboratories L.P. and EM Industries, Incorporated c.o.b. Center Laboratories
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; matter remitted for trial
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Agreement to Agree, Contract Interpretation, Termination, Mitigation of Damages, Expectation Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Damages Summary Judgment Agreement to Agree Contract Interpretation Termination Mitigation of Damages +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allerex Laboratory Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant/respondent by Way of Cross Appeal

Dey Laboratories L.P. and EM Industries, Incorporated c.o.b. Center Laboratories

Defendants/respondents/appellants by Way of Cross Appeal

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the May 10, 1993 letter constituted a binding contract or was merely an agreement to agree
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given ambiguity in the letter
  3. 3 Whether the 1997 agreement superseded the May 10, 1993 letter

Ratio Decidendi

The May 10, 1993 letter was ambiguous on whether it created a binding contract and the ambiguity dealt with factual matters (historical dealings, industry practice, and subsequent conduct) that could not be resolved on summary judgment; therefore summary judgment dismissing Allerex's claim was improper and the dispute must proceed to trial. The respondents' alternative grounds for summary judgment likewise raised factual and credibility issues and could not be resolved summarily.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; matter remitted for trial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and cross-appeal dismissed; entire dispute to proceed to trial
  • Fresh evidence tendered by the appellant not admitted