Hamel v. Patenaude

Where an agent performs the mandate by procuring a purchaser in conformity with the terms, the agent is entitled to the agreed commission under Civil Code arts. 1233 and 1722; therefore the appeal was allowed and the action for the commission maintained.

Citation: [1925] SCR 493
Parties: Appellant (plaintiff): Hamel; Respondent (defendant): Patenaude
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 30 December 1924
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal (sale/mandate) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada Judgment Stage
Outcome: Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; appeal maintained with costs in favour of appellants.
Legal Topics: Commission, Mandate, Immovable Property, Profit, Civil Code Interpretation
Source Language: English

Sale Agency Property Law Civil Procedure Commission Mandate Immovable Property Profit +1 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Hamel

Appellant (plaintiff)

Patenaude

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (sale/mandate) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada Judgment Stage

Legal Issues

1 Whether real estate agents were entitled to a $5,000 commission for the sale of an immovable under their mandate
2 Application and interpretation of Civil Code arts. 1233 and 1722 to mandate and commission claims
3 Whether the requirements for entitlement to commission were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; appeal maintained with costs in favour of appellants.

Orders

Appeal allowed
Judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed