Hill-Clarke-Francis Ltd. v. Northland Groceries (Quebec) Ltd.

Hill-Clarke-Francis Ltd. v. Northland Groceries (Quebec) Ltd.

The agreement was a contract of enterprise (devis et marché) because the contractor exercised exclusive control of work, labour and method; under art.1688 C.C. the contractor is liable for subsidence from construction or soil defects and bears the burden to prove any exception (force majeure, fortuitous event, owner’s fault, act of third party); appellant failed to prove such exceptions and is liable for damages and repairs (trial award of $4,877.68 upheld and an additional $3,000 awarded on cross‑appeal).

Citation
[1941] SCR 437
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Hill-Clarke-Francis Ltd.; Respondent / Plaintiff: Northland Groceries (Quebec) Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1941
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Builder Liability, Defect of Soil, Presumption of Fault, Burden of Proof, Five‑year Warranty (art.1688 C.c.)
Source Language
English
Contract Construction Law Civil Law (quebec) Builder Liability Defect of Soil Presumption of Fault Burden of Proof Five‑year Warranty (art.1688 C.c.)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hill-Clarke-Francis Ltd.

Appellant / Defendant

Northland Groceries (Quebec) Ltd.

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement was a contract of enterprise (devis et marché) or a louage de services
  2. 2 Whether absence of a fixed price or specifications defeats classification as contract of enterprise
  3. 3 Whether contractor is liable for subsidence caused by soil defects or construction defects under art.1688 C.C.

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement was a contract of enterprise (devis et marché) because the contractor exercised exclusive control of work, labour and method; under art.1688 C.C. the contractor is liable for subsidence from construction or soil defects and bears the burden to prove any exception (force majeure, fortuitous event, owner’s fault, act of third party); appellant failed to prove such exceptions and is liable for damages and repairs (trial award of $4,877.68 upheld and an additional $3,000 awarded on cross‑appeal).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross‑appeal maintained in part: additional award of $3,000 with interest from service of the action; respondent awarded costs.