The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding an exclusive supply agreement and awarding damages for its breach.
They argued that the trial judge erred in finding an exclusive supply agreement after concluding there was no consulting agreement, that the pleadings were deficient, and that the arrangement was merely an 'agreement to agree' due to missing terms like price.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the agreements were not so interrelated as to preclude finding a supply agreement, the pleadings were sufficient, and there was an implied term that raw materials would be provided at a reasonable price.
The court also upheld the trial judge's quantification of damages based on a 12-month period and a 15% profit margin.
