Apologies for the hiatus. I have been unusually busy the last month due to starting an internship. I might only have time to cover one decision every Sunday for now.
Membrane de PVC Duradek Québec inc. c. Lévesque, 2012 QCCQ 12094 (payment for construction work)
Plaintiff is suing for payment of the balance on a sales & installation contract of membranes to cover 3 “galeries”. The contract was concluded in May 2011, and Defendant paid $2015,90 deposit. However, by July 2011, only 2 of the 3 “galeries” were completed. Plaintiff refused to finish the work until a second instalment was paid. Defendant contests the amount, and claims Plaintiff did not have the proper construction registrations.
Result: The Court had to answer many questions before reaching a verdict:
– Is the contract valid?
Articles 46 and 50 of the Loi sur le bâtiment state that constructors must be registered, and a contract with a non-registered constructor may be nullified.
46. Nul ne peut exercer les fonctions d’entrepreneur de construction, en prendre le titre, ni donner lieu de croire qu’il est entrepreneur de construction, s’il n’est titulaire d’une licence en vigueur à cette fin.
Aucun entrepreneur ne peut utiliser, pour l’exécution de travaux de construction, les services d’un autre entrepreneur qui n’est pas titulaire d’une licence à cette fin.
50. La personne qui n’est pas elle-même un entrepreneur qui a conclu un contrat pour l’exécution de travaux de construction avec un entrepreneur qui n’est pas titulaire de la licence appropriée peut en demander l’annulation. […]
However, the court did not consider the installation of the membrane to be “construction work”, and declined to apply the principles above.
– When does the work have to be paid?
2111 CCQ states the client does not have to pay until the work is delivered; so did the Defendant’s contract. Plaintiff was wrong in asking Defendant to pay before the work was completed.
– Given the behaviour of the parties, should the contract be terminated (résilié)?
1604. Where the creditor does not avail himself of the right to force the specific performance of the contractual obligation of the debtor in cases which admit of it, he is entitled either to the resolution of the contract, or to its resiliation in the case of a contract of successive performance. […]
Yes. The Court will not order the complete cancellation of the contract, as substantial work has been done, but only resiliation, which is valid for the future.
– Amount owed to Plaintiff
Duradek claims: $4 064.51
Court deducts: $750 for corrective work defendant will have to have done.
Court deducts: $2 015.90 for the deposit
Court adds: $604.20 for the third membrane specifically ordered for the job.
– Amount owed to Defendant
Court awarded $500 to compensate for loss of profit from the sale of the building.
Court also awarded $600 for inconveniences to Defendant, including having to find a new contractor to correct the work, having to answer to the buyer about the work, and hassles dealing with Plaintiff.
– Since when are interests owed?
For Plaintiffs, from the date the action was filed at court, given the lack of formal notice.
For Defendants, from the date the counter-claim was filed.