Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 4 - Commitments and Contingencies: Pending Litigation In February 2001, a former business associate of a former executive officer 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 executive seeking, among other things, damages for alleged breaches of contract and tortious acts related to a business relationship between this former associate and the executive 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. 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, 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. This litigation has been dormant since July of 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. 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. 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. On November 27, 2017, AEXG filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution. 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. No provisions have been made for these claims. 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

3 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 4 - Commitments and Contingencies:

Pending Litigation

In February 2001, a former business associate of a former executive officer 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 executive seeking, among other things, damages for alleged breaches of contract and tortious acts related to a business relationship between this former associate and the executive 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. 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, 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. This litigation has been dormant since July of 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. 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. 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. On November 27, 2017, AEXG filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution. 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. No provisions have been made for these claims.

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.