Range c. Corporation de Finance Belvédère

Range c. Corporation de Finance Belvédère

The instrument was not an unconditional promissory note under s.176(1) because it formed part of a conditional sale contract; United Loan knew of the non-delivery (fraud at origin) and failed to prove its good faith; accordingly the respondent could not enforce the instrument and the Superior Court's dismissal was restored.

Citation
[1969] RCS 492
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Leonard C. Range; Respondent/plaintiff: Corporation De Finance Belvédère
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 February 1969
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal reversed; judgment of Superior Court dismissing action reinstated.
Legal Topics
Holder in Due Course, Conditional Sale, Promissory Note Attached to Contract, Consideration, Fraud at Origin, Collateral Assignment
Source Language
French
Negotiable Instruments Bills of Exchange Contract Law Banking Law Fraud Holder in Due Course Conditional Sale Promissory Note Attached to Contract +3 more

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard C. Range

Appellant/defendant

Corporation De Finance Belvédère

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether assignee/respondent is a holder in due course
  2. 2 Whether the promissory note was unconditional under s.176(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act
  3. 3 Who bears the burden of proof where fraud exists at the origin of an instrument

Ratio Decidendi

The instrument was not an unconditional promissory note under s.176(1) because it formed part of a conditional sale contract; United Loan knew of the non-delivery (fraud at origin) and failed to prove its good faith; accordingly the respondent could not enforce the instrument and the Superior Court's dismissal was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal reversed; judgment of Superior Court dismissing action reinstated.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed