|A Canadian corporation (plaintiff), involved in the business of developing, marketing and manufacturing pharmaceutical products, entered into an agreement with a corporation based in the Czech Republic (defendant) for the manufacture and supply of certain quantities of walfarin, a chemical ingredient. The Canadian corporation begun preliminary development work with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in order to prepare and submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), for which it indicated defendant as its sole manufacturer of the walfarin. A dispute arose when defendant refused to permit the inspection of its place as requested by the FDA. Defendant moved to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction of the Federal Court or for application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
As to the issue of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court rejected the defendant's argument that the dispute was outside the scope of the CISG on account that the contract at issue was not a contract for the sale of goods and did not contain a definite indication of quantity and price. After recalling that case law interpreting Article 2 UCC, though not per se applicable, may be helpful in interpreting CISG when the provisions in both instruments contain similar language, the Court held that the dispute fell within its jurisdiction, given that the contract at hand was one for the sale of goods, the Convention is not limited to contracts after formation and it makes no difference whether agreements contain or not price or quantity.