Proulx v. Leblanc et Lebel / Benoît v. Leblanc et Lebel

Proulx v. Leblanc et Lebel / Benoît v. Leblanc et Lebel

The contracts constituted stipulations for the benefit of the sellers under art. 1029 C.C., making each successive purchaser personally liable for the debt; service of the writ was a sufficient manifestation of acceptance; and a delegation of payment does not discharge the delegating debtor absent an express intention to discharge (art. 1173 C.C.), therefore each debtor is liable for the entire debt.

Citation
[1969] RCS 765
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Fernand Proulx; Appellant/defendant: Dame Odilon Benoît; Respondent/plaintiff: Gérard Leblanc; Respondent/plaintiff: Marie-Rose Lebel
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1969
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Real Property Sale Dispute / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Stipulation for Third Party, Delegation of Payment, Joint and Several Liability, Civil Code Articles 1029 and 1173
Source Language
French
Property Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Stipulation for Third Party Delegation of Payment Joint and Several Liability Civil Code Articles 1029 and 1173

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fernand Proulx

Appellant/defendant

Dame Odilon Benoît

Appellant/defendant

Gérard Leblanc

Respondent/plaintiff

Marie-Rose Lebel

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Real Property Sale Dispute / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether successive purchasers' contractual clauses constituted a stipulation for the benefit of the original sellers
  2. 2 Whether a delegation of payment to subsequent purchasers discharged prior delegating debtors
  3. 3 Whether plurality of debtors gave rise to legal solidarity or each debtor remained liable for the whole debt

Ratio Decidendi

The contracts constituted stipulations for the benefit of the sellers under art. 1029 C.C., making each successive purchaser personally liable for the debt; service of the writ was a sufficient manifestation of acceptance; and a delegation of payment does not discharge the delegating debtor absent an express intention to discharge (art. 1173 C.C.), therefore each debtor is liable for the entire debt.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal upholding appellants' liability to pay the entire outstanding purchase price (condemnation in solidum/in solidum affirmed)