Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies: Emmaus LOI On January 16, 2017, the Company and Emmaus Life Sciences, Inc. (“Emmaus”) entered into a letter of intent (“LOI”) contemplating that the Company will acquire a controlling interest in the outstanding capital stock of Emmaus for a total consideration of $225,000,000 in cash and Generex stock. The purchase price for shares of stock of the Emmaus Shares will consist of $10,000,000 in cash and $215,000,000 worth of shares of the Company’s common stock (“Company Shares”). The Company paid an aggregate $4,000,000 in cash deposits to Emmaus under the LOI. On May 16, 2017, the LOI was terminated and Emmaus repaid the $4,000,000. Pending Litigation In February 2001, a former business associate of the former Vice President of Research and Development (“VP”) of the Company and an entity known as Centrum Technologies Inc. (“CTI”) commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and the VP seeking, among other things, damages for alleged breaches of contract and tortious acts related to a business relationship between this former associate and the VP that ceased in July 1996. The plaintiffs’ statement of claim also seeks to enjoin the use, if any, by the Company of three patents allegedly owned by CTI. The three patents are entitled Liquid Formulations for Proteinic Pharmaceuticals, Vaccine Delivery System for Immunization, Using Biodegradable Polymer Microspheres, and Controlled Releases of Drugs or Hormones in Biodegradable Polymer Microspheres. It is the Company’s position that the buccal drug delivery technologies which are the subject matter of the Company’s research, development, and commercialization efforts, including Generex Oral-lyn and the RapidMist Diabetes Management System, do not make use of, are not derivative of, do not infringe upon, and are entirely different from the intellectual property identified in the plaintiffs’ statement of claim. On July 20, 2001, the Company filed a preliminary motion to dismiss the action of CTI as a nonexistent entity or, alternatively, to stay such action on the grounds of want of authority of such entity to commence the action. The plaintiffs brought a cross motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute Centrum Biotechnologies, Inc. (“CBI”) for CTI. CBI is a corporation of which 50 percent of the shares are owned by the former business associate and the remaining 50 percent are owned by the Company. Consequently, the shareholders of CBI are in a deadlock. The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the action of CTI and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion without prejudice to the former business associate to seek leave to bring a derivative action in the name of or on behalf of CBI. The former business associate subsequently filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an order granting him leave to file an action in the name of and on behalf of CBI against the VP and the Company. The Company opposed the application. In September 2003, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the request and issued an order giving the former business associate leave to file an action in the name of and on behalf of CBI against the VP and the Company. A statement of claim was served in July 2004. The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding at the present time or to estimate an amount or range of potential loss, if any, from this legal proceeding. On May 20, 2011, Rose Perri, a former officer of the Company, filed a statement of claim (subsequently amended) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, naming as defendants the Company and certain directors of the Company, John Barratt, Brian Masterson, Mark McGee, and Mr. Fletcher. In this action, Ms. Perri has alleged that defendants engaged in discrimination, harassment, bad faith and infliction of mental distress in connection with the termination of her employment with the Company. Ms. Perri is seeking damages in this action in excess of $7,000,000 for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Ontario Human Rights Code and aggravated and punitive damages. On September 20, 2011, the defendants filed a statement of defense and counterclaim, also naming Time Release Corp., Khazak Group Consulting Corp., and David Khazak, C.A. as defendants by counterclaim, and seeking damages of approximately $2.3 million in funds that the defendants allege Ms. Perri wrongly caused the Company to pay to third parties in varying amounts over several years and an accounting of certain third-party payments, plus interests and costs. The factual basis for the counterclaim involves payments made by the Company to third parties believed to be related to Ms. Perri. The Company intends to defend this action and pursue its counterclaim vigorously and is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding at the present time or to estimate an amount or range of potential loss, if any, from this legal proceeding. On June 1, 2011, Golden Bull Estates Ltd. filed a claim (subsequently amended) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, naming the Company, 1097346 Ontario, Inc. and Generex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as defendants. The plaintiff, Golden Bull Estates Ltd., is controlled by Ms. Perri. The plaintiff alleges damages in the amount of $550,000 for breach of contract, $50,000 for punitive damages, plus interest and costs. The plaintiff’s claims relate to an alleged contract between the plaintiff and the Company for property management services for certain Ontario properties owned by the Company. The Company terminated the plaintiff’s property management services in April 2011. Following the close of pleadings, the Company served a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff responded by amending its statement of claim to include a claim to the Company’s interest in certain of its real estate holdings. The plaintiff moved for leave to issue and register a Certificate of Pending Litigation in respect of this real estate. The motion was not successful in respect of any current real estate holdings of the Company. The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding at the present time or to estimate an amount or range of potential loss, if any, from this legal proceeding. In December 2011, a vendor of the Company commenced an action against the Company and its subsidiary, Generex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice claiming damages for unpaid invoices including interest in the amount of $429,000, in addition to costs and further interest. The Company responded to this statement of claim and also asserted a counterclaim in the proceeding for $200,000 arising from the vendor’s breach of contract and detinue, together with interest and costs. On November 16, 2012, the parties agreed to settle this action and the Company has agreed to pay the plaintiff $125,000, following the spinout of its subsidiary Antigen, from the proceeds of any public or private financing related to Antigen subsequent to such spinout. Each party agreed to execute mutual releases to the claim and counterclaim to be held in trust by each party’s counsel until payment of the settlement amount. Following payment to the plaintiff, the parties agree that a Consent Dismissal Order without costs will be filed with the court. If the Company fails to make the payment following completion of any post-spinout financing related to Antigen or any other subsidiaries, the Plaintiffs may take out a judgment in the amount of the claim plus interest of 3% per annum and costs fixed at $25,000. On August 22, 2017, Generex received a letter from counsel for Three Brothers Trading LLC, d/b/a Alternative Execution Group (“AEXG”), claiming breach of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between Generex and AEXG. The MOU related to AEXG referring potential financing candidate to Generex. The letter from AEXG counsel claimed that Generex’s acceptance of $3,000,000 in financing from Pharma Trials, LLC, in March 2017, violated the provisions of the MOU prohibiting Generex from seeking other financing, with certain exceptions, for a period of 60 days after execution of the MOU. AEXG has demanded at least $210,000 in cash and 84,000 warrants for Generex stock convertible at $2.50 per share, for attorney’s fees and costs. Generex management believes the Pharma Trials, LLC Financing was not subject to the prohibitions because the representative of Pharma Trials, LLC was a director of Generex, and for other reasons. The Company is involved in certain other legal proceedings in addition to those specifically described herein. Subject to the uncertainty inherent in all litigation, the Company does not believe at the present time that the resolution of any of these legal proceedings is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, operations or cash flows. With respect to all litigation, as additional information concerning the estimates used by the Company becomes known, the Company reassesses its position both with respect to accrued liabilities and other potential exposures.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Jul. 31, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies:

Emmaus LOI

On January 16, 2017, the Company and Emmaus Life Sciences, Inc. (“Emmaus”) entered into a letter of intent (“LOI”) contemplating that the Company will acquire a controlling interest in the outstanding capital stock of Emmaus for a total consideration of $225,000,000 in cash and Generex stock. The purchase price for shares of stock of the Emmaus Shares will consist of $10,000,000 in cash and $215,000,000 worth of shares of the Company’s common stock (“Company Shares”). The Company paid an aggregate $4,000,000 in cash deposits to Emmaus under the LOI. On May 16, 2017, the LOI was terminated and Emmaus repaid the $4,000,000.

Pending Litigation

In February 2001, a former business associate of the former Vice President of Research and Development (“VP”) of the Company and an entity known as Centrum Technologies Inc. (“CTI”) commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and the VP seeking, among other things, damages for alleged breaches of contract and tortious acts related to a business relationship between this former associate and the VP that ceased in July 1996. The plaintiffs’ statement of claim also seeks to enjoin the use, if any, by the Company of three patents allegedly owned by CTI. The three patents are entitled Liquid Formulations for Proteinic Pharmaceuticals, Vaccine Delivery System for Immunization, Using Biodegradable Polymer Microspheres, and Controlled Releases of Drugs or Hormones in Biodegradable Polymer Microspheres. It is the Company’s position that the buccal drug delivery technologies which are the subject matter of the Company’s research, development, and commercialization efforts, including Generex Oral-lyn and the RapidMist Diabetes Management System, do not make use of, are not derivative of, do not infringe upon, and are entirely different from the intellectual property identified in the plaintiffs’ statement of claim. On July 20, 2001, the Company filed a preliminary motion to dismiss the action of CTI as a nonexistent entity or, alternatively, to stay such action on the grounds of want of authority of such entity to commence the action. The plaintiffs brought a cross motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute Centrum Biotechnologies, Inc. (“CBI”) for CTI. CBI is a corporation of which 50 percent of the shares are owned by the former business associate and the remaining 50 percent are owned by the Company. Consequently, the shareholders of CBI are in a deadlock. The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the action of CTI and denied the plaintiffs’ cross motion without prejudice to the former business associate to seek leave to bring a derivative action in the name of or on behalf of CBI. The former business associate subsequently filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for an order granting him leave to file an action in the name of and on behalf of CBI against the VP and the Company. The Company opposed the application. In September 2003, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the request and issued an order giving the former business associate leave to file an action in the name of and on behalf of CBI against the VP and the Company. A statement of claim was served in July 2004. The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding at the present time or to estimate an amount or range of potential loss, if any, from this legal proceeding.

On May 20, 2011, Rose Perri, a former officer of the Company, filed a statement of claim (subsequently amended) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, naming as defendants the Company and certain directors of the Company, John Barratt, Brian Masterson, Mark McGee, and Mr. Fletcher. In this action, Ms. Perri has alleged that defendants engaged in discrimination, harassment, bad faith and infliction of mental distress in connection with the termination of her employment with the Company. Ms. Perri is seeking damages in this action in excess of $7,000,000 for, among other things, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Ontario Human Rights Code and aggravated and punitive damages. On September 20, 2011, the defendants filed a statement of defense and counterclaim, also naming Time Release Corp., Khazak Group Consulting Corp., and David Khazak, C.A. as defendants by counterclaim, and seeking damages of approximately $2.3 million in funds that the defendants allege Ms. Perri wrongly caused the Company to pay to third parties in varying amounts over several years and an accounting of certain third-party payments, plus interests and costs. The factual basis for the counterclaim involves payments made by the Company to third parties believed to be related to Ms. Perri. The Company intends to defend this action and pursue its counterclaim vigorously and is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding at the present time or to estimate an amount or range of potential loss, if any, from this legal proceeding.

On June 1, 2011, Golden Bull Estates Ltd. filed a claim (subsequently amended) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, naming the Company, 1097346 Ontario, Inc. and Generex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as defendants. The plaintiff, Golden Bull Estates Ltd., is controlled by Ms. Perri. The plaintiff alleges damages in the amount of $550,000 for breach of contract, $50,000 for punitive damages, plus interest and costs. The plaintiff’s claims relate to an alleged contract between the plaintiff and the Company for property management services for certain Ontario properties owned by the Company. The Company terminated the plaintiff’s property management services in April 2011. Following the close of pleadings, the Company served a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff responded by amending its statement of claim to include a claim to the Company’s interest in certain of its real estate holdings. The plaintiff moved for leave to issue and register a Certificate of Pending Litigation in respect of this real estate. The motion was not successful in respect of any current real estate holdings of the Company. The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this legal proceeding at the present time or to estimate an amount or range of potential loss, if any, from this legal proceeding.

In December 2011, a vendor of the Company commenced an action against the Company and its subsidiary, Generex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice claiming damages for unpaid invoices including interest in the amount of $429,000, in addition to costs and further interest. The Company responded to this statement of claim and also asserted a counterclaim in the proceeding for $200,000 arising from the vendor’s breach of contract and detinue, together with interest and costs. On November 16, 2012, the parties agreed to settle this action and the Company has agreed to pay the plaintiff $125,000, following the spinout of its subsidiary Antigen, from the proceeds of any public or private financing related to Antigen subsequent to such spinout. Each party agreed to execute mutual releases to the claim and counterclaim to be held in trust by each party’s counsel until payment of the settlement amount. Following payment to the plaintiff, the parties agree that a Consent Dismissal Order without costs will be filed with the court. If the Company fails to make the payment following completion of any post-spinout financing related to Antigen or any other subsidiaries, the Plaintiffs may take out a judgment in the amount of the claim plus interest of 3% per annum and costs fixed at $25,000.

On August 22, 2017, Generex received a letter from counsel for Three Brothers Trading LLC, d/b/a Alternative Execution Group (“AEXG”), claiming breach of a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between Generex and AEXG. The MOU related to AEXG referring potential financing candidate to Generex. The letter from AEXG counsel claimed that Generex’s acceptance of $3,000,000 in financing from Pharma Trials, LLC, in March 2017, violated the provisions of the MOU prohibiting Generex from seeking other financing, with certain exceptions, for a period of 60 days after execution of the MOU. AEXG has demanded at least $210,000 in cash and 84,000 warrants for Generex stock convertible at $2.50 per share, for attorney’s fees and costs. Generex management believes the Pharma Trials, LLC Financing was not subject to the prohibitions because the representative of Pharma Trials, LLC was a director of Generex, and for other reasons.

The Company is involved in certain other legal proceedings in addition to those specifically described herein. Subject to the uncertainty inherent in all litigation, the Company does not believe at the present time that the resolution of any of these legal proceedings is likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, operations or cash flows.

With respect to all litigation, as additional information concerning the estimates used by the Company becomes known, the Company reassesses its position both with respect to accrued liabilities and other potential exposures.