The respondent automobile carrier brought an application seeking a declaration that the applicant automobile manufacturer breached a contract governing delivery routes for vehicle shipments.
The applicant brought a counter‑motion seeking to convert the application into an action on the basis that the dispute raised significant factual controversies, including issues of economic duress, contractual interpretation, and the doctrine of good faith in requirements contracts.
The court held that the dispute involved contested facts and credibility issues that could not properly be resolved on an application record.
The court further noted that the law relating to good faith and requirements contracts was developing and that a fuller evidentiary record was necessary.
The application was therefore converted into an action.
