Dansereau v. Lafrenière / Dansereau v. Richelieu Transportation Co.

Dansereau v. Lafrenière / Dansereau v. Richelieu Transportation Co.

Majority held that novation was not established because there was no evidence of an evident intention by the respondents to discharge Dansereau; the letter merely indicated a third party payer and a delegation occurred, not a novation, therefore Dansereau remained liable for the cost of repairs under arts.1171-1174 C.C.

Citation
[1926] SCR 138
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Georges Dansereau; Defendant (co Defendant): Richelieu Transportation Co.; Respondents (plaintiffs): J.-Bte. Lafreniere and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 December 1925
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondents affirmed
Legal Topics
Novation, Delegation Vs Novation, Repairs to Property, Notice to Contractors, Possession and Insolvency
Source Language
English
Contract Civil Procedure Obligations Novation Delegation Vs Novation Repairs to Property Notice to Contractors Possession and Insolvency

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Georges Dansereau

Appellant (defendant)

Richelieu Transportation Co.

Defendant (co Defendant)

J.-Bte. Lafreniere and Others

Respondents (plaintiffs)

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal / On Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale/notification effected a novation discharging the original owner from liability for repairs
  2. 2 Whether mere indication of a third party to pay suffices for novation under the Civil Code
  3. 3 Whether the respondents intended to discharge the original debtor

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that novation was not established because there was no evidence of an evident intention by the respondents to discharge Dansereau; the letter merely indicated a third party payer and a delegation occurred, not a novation, therefore Dansereau remained liable for the cost of repairs under arts.1171-1174 C.C.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for respondents affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Appellant liable to pay $2,785.89 for repairs; judgment of Court of King’s Bench affirmed