[brief] Pa227-28.  C.  Motions for Summary Judgment  Defendant filed a renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on March 2, 2023.  Pa3.  The substantive argument in the Motion for Summary Judgment is that Plaintiff failed to produce documentation to tie the replacement pipe from [...] to the specific type or quantity of pipe it agreed to order from Defendant.  Pa3-214.  Plaintiff opposed the Motion for Summary Judgment on March 21, 2023, and filed a Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, arguing that issues of fact related to damages precluded summary judgment, and that there was no issue of fact with respect to Plaintiff’s liability for breach of contract.  Pa214-455.  Reply papers were filed by the Defendant on December March 27, 2023.  Pa456-502.  The Lower Court conducted oral argument on the Motions for Summary Judgment on June 5, 2023.  1T:1-1.  During the oral argument, Plaintiff set forth the various disputed material facts with respect to damages that precluded summary judgment in favor of Defendant.  In particular, Plaintiff’s counsel raised the various checks to [...], replacement quotes, and deposition testimony that gave rise to issues of fact.  1T16:2-15.  Plaintiff’s counsel highlighted a certification from Plaintiff’s principal providing the exact damages calculation and stating that the various checks to [...] represented purchases of the same type of pipe that Plaintiff was obligated to buy from Defendant.  1T16:2-15, 1T23:17-24.  Further, counsel highlighted the testimony from Plaintiff’s representatives confirming that it entered into a binding agreement with [...] to buy the same amount of pipe that they were obligated to buy from Defendant, irrespective of whether those purchases have already been made.  1T17:12-17, 1T19:12-18, 1T20:12-20, 1T21:12-18.  Plaintiff highlighted that Defendant was attacking the weight and credibility of Plaintiff’s damages, and that Defendant asked the Court to act as a factfinder and to make credibility determinations, which was not appropriate for summary judgment.  1T17:23-18:2, 1T21:20-22:4, 1T42:3-12.  The Lower Court also expressed confusion about the various [...] checks and how they correlated to the contract amounts with Defendant, which Plaintiff further emphasized evidenced a dispute of fact.  1T24:1-19.  The Lower Court also acknowledged the existence of various issues of fact, such as whether or not Plaintiff and [...] entered into a contract, and whether or not Plaintiff purchased the pipe from [...] in accordance with the terms of that contract.  1T25:23-26:7, 1T37:1-10, 1T40:4-8, 1T45:17-18, 1T46:14-17.  Significantly, the Lower Court acknowledged that Plaintiff’s evidence of damages gave rise to various issues of fact.  For example, the Court found that Plaintiff’s chart reflecting a comparison of pipe prices as part of the damages calculation and whether the [...] quotes were binding created questions of fact.  1T50:14-51:16, 1T52:11-22.  Yet, even with all these disputes of fact as to damages, the Lower Court ultimately found in favor of Defendant by finding that the checks did not prove exactly what was purchased from [...].  1T58:20-59:11.  Further, the Lower Court denied Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment without any reasoning.  1T59:14-22.  Accordingly, the Lower Court entered an Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denying Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.  Pa1-2.