The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim for damages arising from future sales of EPIPEN products in France.
The motion judge had concluded that a May 10, 1993 letter was merely an agreement to agree.
The Court of Appeal found the letter ambiguous, containing both language of a contract and language suggesting a future contract, and held that its proper characterization required trial evidence regarding the parties' history, industry practice, and subsequent conduct.
The respondents' cross-appeal on alternative grounds for summary judgment was dismissed as those issues also required resolving factual and credibility disputes.
The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to trial.
