The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) for a declaration that it had standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue for breach of contract based on a restrictive covenant in an agreement of purchase and sale between the defendants and a non-party.
The defendants argued that contractual interpretation is a question of mixed fact and law, making it inappropriate for a Rule 21 motion where evidence is generally inadmissible.
The court agreed with the defendants, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Sattva, and dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the agreement would require evidence and could not be determined as a pure question of law.
