PRACTICE |
Judgments and Orders |
Summary Judgment |
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar
T-1848-99
2002 FCT 900, Hugessen J.
28/8/02
4 pp.
Parties exchanging correspondence regarding settlement of litigation--Although correspondence on both sides expressly indicating execution of formal settlement agreement contemplated, never done--Defendant moving for summary judgment based on alleged settlement as documented in exchange of correspondence--Motion dismissed--Mere agreement to agree not enforceable, although as matter of construction Court may find agreement to agree in fact binding contract i.e. formal agreement only intended as means of executing contract--But that is exception to general rule, and Court must have evidence that parties intended by their exchange of documents to bind themselves finally--Much depending on circumstances, including parties' actions subsequent to exchange of documents, particular circumstances, timing--Nothing in evidence permitting conclusion anything more than agreement to agree herein--Defendant, as moving party, not meeting burden of persuading Court no genuine issue for trial.