Hamel v. Patenaude
- Citation
- [1925] SCR 493
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 30 December 1924
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (sale/mandate) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada Judgment Stage
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 30 December 1924
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (sale/mandate) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada Judgment Stage
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
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
- Action of the appellants maintained
- Costs awarded to the appellants
02
Material facts
Parties
Hamel
Appellant (plaintiff) Counsel: L. E. Beaulieu K.C.Patenaude
Respondent (defendant) Counsel: Lafleur K.C.; Duranleau K.C.Amounts and remedies
- Claimed Commission: CAD 5,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal (sale/mandate) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada Judgment Stage
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether real estate agents were entitled to a $5,000 commission for the sale of an immovable under their mandate
- 02
Application and interpretation of Civil Code arts. 1233 and 1722 to mandate and commission claims
- 03
Whether the requirements for entitlement to commission were satisfied
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants, real estate agents, asserted they procured a purchaser in accordance with the mandate and were entitled to a $5,000 commission for the sale of the respondent's immovable property.
- Respondent
- Respondent denied liability for the commission, contending the conditions for commission under the mandate/Civil Code were not met and that no profit or enforceable obligation to pay arose.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Civil Code of Quebec, arts. 1233, 1722
An agent who, in accordance with a mandate, procures a purchaser for an immovable is entitled to commission when the mandate's conditions are met.
- 02
Civil Code of Quebec
The obligations and rights arising from a contract of mandate are governed by the Civil Code and turn on fulfillment of the mandate's terms.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
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.
Obiter and limits
- The Court rejected the Court of King's Bench's reversal of the Superior Court on the facts.
- Costs properly follow the successful appellant in these circumstances.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed; appeal maintained with costs in favour of appellants.
- Appeal allowed
- Judgment of the Court of King's Bench reversed
- Action of the appellants maintained
- Costs awarded to the appellants
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 30 December 1924
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 30 December 1924
Hamel v. Patenaude Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1924-12-30 Report [1925] SCR 493 Judges Anglin, Francis Alexander; Idington, John; Duff, Lyman Poore; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Rinfret, Thibaudeau On appeal from Quebec Subjects Sale Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Hamel v. Patenaude, [1925] S.C.R. 493 Date: 1924-12-30 Hamel v. Patenaude 1924: November 26, 27; 1924: December 30. Present: Anglin C.J.C. and Idington, Duff, Mignault, Newcombe and Rinfret JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC Sale—Immovable—Mandate—Commission—Profit—Arts. 1233, 1722 C.C. APPEAL from the judgment of the Court of King's Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec[1], reversing the judgment of the Superior Court and dismissing the appellant's action. The appellants, real estate agents, brought action against the respondent to recover the sum of $5,000, as commission for the sale of an immovable property belonging to the respondent. The Superior Court maintained the action; the Court of King's Bench reversed this judgment. The Supreme Court of Canada, after argument by the appellant's counsel and the respondent's counsel, reversed this judgment and maintained the appeal with costs. L. E. Beaulieu K.C. for the appellant. Lafleur K.C. and Duranleau K.C. for the respondent. [1] [1923] Q.R. 35 K.B. 333.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.