-Mar. 6.
(DEFENDANT).......
.....................
*May 5.
AND
LA BANQUE
PROVINCIALE DU
RESPONDENT. CANADA
(PLAINTIFF) . . .............
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
the judgment of the said Court of King's Bench in so far as it reversed the judgment of the trial court.
The questions at issue on the main appeal are stated in the head-note and judgments now reported.
The only question raised on the cross-appeal was as to an amount of $2,442.50 which was deducted from the sum awarded to the cross-appellant by the judgment appealed from.
Mignault K.C. and Bonin K.C. for the appellant.
Lafleur K.C. and Lajoie for the respondent.
SEDGEWICK J.-I concur in the reasoning of my brother Girouard.
GIROUARD J.-J'ai 6prouv6 beaucoup d'hisitation & former une opinion dans cette -cause, mais apris un s6rieux examen, je suis d'avis de modifier le jugement de la cour d'appel.
Deux questions se pr6sentent: lo MAIsoN- Le mode de calculer les int6r6ts sur les paiements faits E.
par anticipation, sanctionn6 par la cour d'appel, est-il celui pr6vu par le contrat des parties?
20 Le march6 DIU & forfait est-il sujet A diminution des travaux en indemnisant 1'entrepreneur ?
Gironard J.
Je dois dire que ce n'est pas la question des int6rits qui m'a embarrass6. Je crois que le mode de les calculer adopt6 par la cour de premibre instance n'est pas celui qui est pr6vu par le contrat.
Les int6rAts ne sont pas dets du jour de chaque paiement, mais seulement A compter du 15 d6cembre 1899, on subs6quemment, si les paiements ont 6t0 faits apris cette date. Nous sommes tous d'accord avec la cour d'appel sur ce point, mais nous diffirons de cette derni~re sur la base de ces int6r~ts.
ls doivent 6tre calcul6s sur le montant pay6, et non pas sur le cofit r6el des travaux. Voici la clause du contrat A cet 6gard:
Ce contrat est fait d'aprbs la soumission des dits U. Pauz6 & Fils A raison de la somme de cent dix-huit mille quatre cent soixante-dixneuf piastres et quatre-vingt-dix-sept centins ($118,479.97) pour les travaux d'dgouts, et de la somme de vingt et un mille trois cent soixante-quinze piastres ($21,375.00) pour les travaux de terrassement, lesquelles sommes, la dite Ville de Maisonneuve s'oblige de payer aux dits U. Pauz4 & Fils par billets promissoires payables dans deux ans de leur ch6ance, sans intir8t; lesquels billets ne seront d6livrds aux dits U. Pauz6 & Fils qu'aprks r6ception finale des travaux ci-dessus mentionnis par la Ville de Maisonneuve et son ing~nieur, mais devront porter la date moyenne de la terminaison des dits travaux.
Advenant le cas o6 la Ville de Maisonneuve dsirerait payer aucun on tous les billets plus haut mentionn6s avant leur dch~ance, il lui sera loisible de le faire en aucun temps et sans avis et un intbrit compos6 de six (6) pour cent par an sera ddduit du montant du codt des travaux, sans intirit, et sera en proportion du temps qui se sera 6coul6 depuis le paiement du on des dits billets jusqu'd la date de son on de leur 6ch6ance.
Puis, les devis et sp6cifications qui font partie du contrat portent la clause suivante:
R
Comme on le voit, la corporation avait deux ans G . pour payer le prix du contrat A compter de la date moyenne de la terminaison des travaux, mais elle devait payer pendant ces deux ann6es un int6rAt compos6 de six pour cent par an, lequel fut compris dans le prix stipul6 au contrat.
Cette date moyenne fut fix~e par les parties an 15 d~cembre 1899, et c'est alors seulement qu'un on plusieurs billets portant cette date et payables A deux ans de date, sans int&rt, pouvaient 6tre demand6s par les entrepreneurs.
Des billets leur furent effectivement livrbs, mais A l'automne de 1900, il restait encore une balance consid6rable non r~gl6e par billets et que la corporation contestait en partie. C'est cette balance-que les entrepreneurs chiffraient A ]a somme de $45,017.81-qui fut transport6e le 3 octobre 1900 A la Banque Provinciale du Canada, et qui est r~clambe par la pr~sente action.
Les parties sont d'accord sur toutes leurs transactions, A 1'exception de la question des int6rts sur les paiements faits par anticipation et d'une rTduction de $2,442.50 A raison de la diminution de certains travaux par la ville.
Des paiements par anticipation furent faits avant apr&s le 15 d6cembre 1899.
M. le juge Archibald, qui jugea en premibre instance, accorda les int6r~ts h compter de la date des paiements jusqu'au 15 d6cembre En appel il fut jug6 que ces int&rts ne doivent courir qu'A compter du 15 d~cembre 1899, s'ils ont th faits avant cette date, et du jour ils ont t6 faits, s'ils le furent apris. Nous sommes tous d'avis que VILLDE c'est le mode pr6vu par le contrat.
De cette fagon, si le 15 d6cembre, 1899, la corporation ett pay6 le prix entier du march6, le montant PROvINcE- total des int6rits qui en faisaient partie devait Atre dbduit.
Elle n'avait alors pay6 qu'une partie, savoir J.$58,422.86, en quatre paiements, et elle a droit A une Gironard J reduction pour autant, avec int6rts compos4s pendant deux ans, et ainsi de suite lorsque des paiements subs6quents furent faits. En un mot, lorsqu'elle faisait un paiement par anticipation, elle avait droit d'6tre rembours4e des int6rits compos4s qui avaient 6t6 compris dans le prix du march6.
C'est aussi la m~thode qu'a consacr6e en partie la cour d'appel si 'on en juge par les consid6rants suivants de son jugement: The Court, etc.-Considering that the intention of the parties to the contract between the appellant and the commercial firm of U. Pauz6 et Fils was that a delay of two years for the payment of the price of the works contracted for should be allowed, to date from the day to be agreed upon as the mean date of the completion of the works, which date was subsequently established to be the 15th day of December, 1899, that compound interest at the rate of six per centum per annum for such two years should be added to the real price in consideration of such term of two years for its payment, that the appellant should give promissory notes to the contractors for the price of the works, with the addition of such compound interest for two years, bearing date on the day to be agreed upon as the mean date of the completion of the works and payable two years after date, and that the appellant should have the privilege of paying the whole or part of the price by anticipation and would be entitled to an allowance of compound interest at the rate of six per centum per annum on the portion of the real price, that is the price less the addition of the compound interest for two years, represented by all payments so made, from the 15th day of December, 1899, if made before that date, to the 15th day of December, 1901, and from the date of payment if made within the term of two years stipulated for the payment of the price of the contract to the 15th day of December, 1901:
Considering that the appellant is entitled to compound interest only for two years on the payments made before the 15th day of December, 1899, and to the compound interest from the date of payment on the payments made subsequently to the 15th day of December 1899, to the 15th day of December 1901 ; that there is therefore error in the method employed by the court of first instance for calculating such compound interest, which was calculated on all the payments from the date on which they were made whether before or after the 15th day .*QUE of December 1899;
PRovINCr- Considering that the rebate of compound interest to which the appellant is entitled amounts according to the calculation hereto annexed to the sum of $10,989.13 and not to the sum of $12.730.45 Girouard J. allowed by the judgment appealed from.
Doth declare that the sum due on the claim of the commercial firm of U. Pauz4 et Fils by the appellant to the respondent as the transferee of the contractors,is $25,838.19, on account of which the respondent has received the promissory note of the appellant for $22,819.56, payable on the 15th day of December 1901, leaving a balance of $3,018.63, and doth condemn the appellant to pay this balance of $3,018.63 to the respondent, with interest from the 15th day of December 1901 at the rate of six per centum per annum and costs of suit in the Superior Court, the whole with the reservation of all rights which the respondent may have under and in virtue of the promissory note for $22,819.56 against the appellant.
Dans une note, au bas du jugement, on trouve une table du calcul de ces intrats compos6s.
Elle nous fait voir que, pour en d6terminer le montant, la cour a pris comme base le codt actuel (the real price) des travaux.
Nous croyons que c'est 1A une erreur. Ces expressions real price ne se trouvent pas au contrat. Le contrat, il est vrai, dit que l'intkrt compos6 " sera dbduit du montant du codt des travaux ". Mais cela ne vent pas dire cofit r6el on real price, mais le coft port6 au contrat. c'est-A-dire le coftt r6el et les int6r~ts qui furent ajouths.
Cette interpr6tation est la seule raisonnable et possible mme en face de la clause 15e des sp&cifications :- La ville pourra payer etc.,-en ddduisant les intbrts composds au taux de six pour cent par an & 4cheoir aprbs l'4poque des paiements et lesquels etaient compris dans le prix de soumission your la totalite' des deux annes.
En d6terminant le montant des int6rts, nous n'avons pas A consid6rer le coft reel des travaux, mais le mon- J.
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA.
[VOL XXXTIL taut des sommes pay6es.
Nous croyons done devoir corriger la table des int6rats calculs par la cour d'appel, de maniere a allouer les int&rts compos6s sur toutes les sommes paybes par articipation et nous sommes arrives au resultat suivant:
Paiements
Terme durant lequel l'in- Intrt par anticit6rt est calcul6.
compo pation.
6 p. 100. $30,204.86 du 15 dec. 1899 an 15 d6c. 1901;
2 ans ............
.........
$3,733.32 $10,793.00 du 15 1899 au 15 d6c. 1901;
2 ans.......
..............
1,334 01 D,125.00 du 15 dec. 1899 au 15 d&. 1901;
2.ans.................
.....
1,127.85 8,300.00 du 15 d6c. 1899 an 15 d&c. 1901;
2 ans
1,0:5.88 15,300.00 du 25 dc. 1899 au 15 d6c. 1901;
1 an ; 351 jours...................
1,853.75 5,655.00 du 4 jan. 191)0 an 15 dec. 1901;
1 an; 345 jours ................
69.25 18,962.45 du 30 jan. 1900 an 15 d&c. 1901;
1 an; 319 jours..............
2,191.75 4,953.78 du 16 aofit 1900 au 15 d&o. 1901;
1 an ; 121 jours .............
.401 66 $103,294 09.
Nous accordons h l'appelante $12,347.47 pour int6rts composes au lieu de $10,989.13 allou6es par la cour d'appel.
C'est la seule diff6rence qui existe entre les deux cours, c'est-&-dire, qu'il faut d~duire $1,358.34 de la condamnation rendue contre elle.
O'est sur la question de la diminution du prix que nous avons longtemps d~libr6.
Cette diminuse monte A $2,442.50.
Je suis tent6 de croire, avec mon confrbre le juge
Armour, que P'article 1691 du Code Civil invoqu6 par ]a cour d'appel pour justifier cette diminution, ne s'applique qu'au cas de la rsiliation entiare du contrat et qu'il consacre un droit exceptionnel en faveur du propri6taire qui ne peut s'6tendre au delA du cas pr~vu par le texte de cet article, savoir la r~siliation et non pas la modification on 1'abandon partiel du contrat de Sa
DU part. II s'agit ici d'une simple contravention an contrat; alors quel est le recours du cr~ancier ? Lorsque
'on consid~re qu'aux terines de 1'article 1691, le propri~taire doit payer les dommages int6rts dus A 1'entrepreneur, ne peut on pas soutenir avec raison que le droit de r~silier tout le contrat est illusoire en pratique et qu'il ne conf~re aucun avantage reel ? La loi, il est vrai, ne permet pas de r6pudier les contrats bilat~raux, ni d'en violer aucune des dispositions. Mais lorsque la chose arrive, quelle est la consequence ?
L'entrepreneur pourra-t-il demander le prix de 1'ouvrage comme s'il 1'eit fait ? L'article 1065, C.C., nous donne la limite du droit du cr~ancier dans un pareil cas :
Comme on le voit, il n'est pas dans une pire position que celui qui, en r~siliant un march6 et devis, reste dans les limites de la 16galit6.
Appliquant donc la ragle g~n~rale concernant l'inex~cution des obligations, les entrepreneurs n'avaient dans l'espee qu'une demande pour dornmages-int6r~ts. Mais comment peuventils la faire valoir? Ils n'ont pas protest6 contre la diminution; ils out continu6 les travaux comme si elle n'eit pas td faite; ils y out donc consenti au moins tacitement. La cour d'appel affirme que de fait, elle leur 6tait profitable et la cour de premiere instance ne contredit pas cette appr6ciation de la preuve. Dommageable ou non, la diminution n'a donn6 lieu A aucune action ou relamation pour dommages-int6rkts de la part des entrepreneurs.
'en est aucunement question dans la cause.
Voild cependant tout ce qu'ils pouvaient demander. Ils ne l'ont pas fait et il y a toute raison de croire que ce filt parce qu'ils n'en avalent pas soufferts.
Nous sommes done d'avis de renvoyer le contre-appel avec d6pens et d'accorder en partie l'appel principal et Girouard J. de modifier le jugement de la cour du bano du roi, avec d6pens devant cette cotir et la cour du bane du roi.
L'appellante est condamn~e A payer A l'intimbe la somme de $1,660.29, l'intrat sur icelle A compter du 15 d6cembre 1901, au taux de six pour cent par an, les frais de la demande en cour sup&rieure; le tout avec la reserve de tous les droits que l'intimbe peut faire valoir A raison du billet promissoire de l'appelante, pour $22,819.56, qu'elle retira de la cour de premiere instance.
J.-Concurred in the result of the judgment for the rcasons stated by His Lordship Mr. Justice Girouard.
J.-In this case I entirely concur in the judgment of my brother Armour, and I do not feel that I can usefully add anything to what he has said in his judgment
J.-The defendant contracted with the firm of U. Pauz6 & Fils to construct certain drains and do certain grading for the defendant, and it was the agreement that the 15th December, 1899, should be taken to be the date of the completion of the works, and that the price fixed for the works should be paid for by the promissory note of the defendant payable in two years from that date. The price fixed for constructing the drains was $118,479.97, and for doing the grading, $21,375. These sums did not represent the true cost of the works, but the true cost of the works with interest at six per cent per annum, compounded for the two years of Ihe currency of the promissory note added to such true cost, and it was agreed that the defendant should be at liberty to pay at any time any part of the said note before the expiration of the two years, and should thereby become entitled to a rebate of such compound interest. The contractors completed the works except a portion thereof which they were directed by the defendant not to do, and they claimed in addition to the fixed price the sum of $2,708.94 for extra work, and the defendant claimed the sum of $2,442.50 as a deduction from the fixed price for the work which the contractors refrainedi from doing by direction of the defendant.
Considerable sums of money were paid by the defendants in respect of the contract as will be shown hereafter.
In October, 1900, the contractors assigned their claims against the defendant to the plaintiff, who thereupon brought this action demanding a promissory note dated the 15th December, 1899, payable in two years for the balance due in respect of the contract, or in the alternative, demanding payment of such balance. The defendant pleaded that, after the commencement of the action, it offered the plaintiff a promissory note dated the 15th December, 1899, payable in two years for the sum of $22,819.56, and offered the attorneys of the plaintiff the sum of $51.75 for their costs and it delivered to the prothonotary of the court the said promissory note.
The cause was tried in the Superior Court by Archibald J. who disallowed the claim of the defendant for the sum of $2,442.50 as a deduction for work not done, and found the offer of the defendant insufficient, that the balance due was $26,539.37 for which sum he ordered the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff its promissory note dated the 15th December, 1899, payable in two years, and in default he ordered the defendant to pay the said sum with interest at six per cent per annum from the 16th December, 1901, and to pay the costs of the suit.
The defendant thereupon appealed to the Court of King's Bench .against the said judgment on the ground of the disallowance of the claim for the deduction of $2,442.50 which court maintained the appeal with costs in favour of the appellant against the respondent, set aside and annulled the judgment appealed from, and proceeding to pronounce the judgment which should have been rendered, declared that the sum due on the claim was $25,838.19 on account of which the respondent had'received the promissory note of the appellant for $22,819.56 payable on the 15th day of December, 1901,' leaving a balance of $3,018.63, and condemned the appellant to pay this balance of $3,018.63 to the respondent with interest from the 15th day of December, 1901, at the rate of six per cent per annum, and costs of suit in the Superior Court, the whole with the reservation of all rights which the respondent might have under and in virtue of the promissory note for $22,81c.56 against the appellant. The defendant thereupon appealed to this court against the judgment of the Court of King's Bench so far as it found the balance due to be $25,838.19, and the plaintiff cross-appealed against the allowance of the deduction of $2,442.50.
The defendant contended that the Court of King's Bench should not have interfered with the computation made by the Superior Court of the balance due by the defendant, for it only appealed to that court by reason of the disallowance of the sum of $2,442.50, but they appealed against the judgment and having done so it was in the power of that court to give the judgment which the Superior Court ought to have given. Besides the allowance by the Court of King's Bench of the deduction of $2,442.50 rendered a new computation necessary in order to ascertain the balance due by the defendant.
I am of the opinion that the allowance by the Court of King's Bench of the deduction of the sum of $2,442.50 was erroneous.
The contract between the contractors and the defendant was for fixed sums for the entire works, and the contractors refrained from doing that portion of the works contracted for, represented by the said sum, by the orders of the defendant, and the defendant was consequently not entitled to any deduction for the work so omitted to be done.
The law relied upon by the defendant and maintained by the Court of King's Bench as authority for allowing the deduction was article 1691 of the Civil
Code:
But this article clearly did not apply to this case for there was no cancellation of the contract within the meaning of that article which plainly means an entire cancellation of the whole contract. It does not give the owner power to cancel the contract as to one part of the work contracted for and to maintain it as to another; he must either cancel it in toto or not at all.
The power is given to cancel the contract, but no power is given to cancel a part of it.
No authority was cited for the construction put upon this article by the Court of King's Bench and the opinions of the commentators upon it seem to me to be opposed to such a construction.
The price payable at the end of the two years for the constiuction of the drains was.........
........ $118,479 For the grading
.................
21,375 00 pBovQo- For extras.......................
2,708 94 $142,563 These items included interest for two years at six per cent per annum compounded; the actual amount therefore payable to the contractors on the 15th December, 1899, was $126,881.37, on account of which the defendant paid prior to the 15th December, 1899, the following sums:
Oct. 28...................
..... $30,204 Nov. 4......
..................
2,832 57 18. ...........
.........
7,960 43 Dec. 6...... . .................
8125 00 10............ ..
..........
8300 00 Amounting in all to............. $57,422 86 on which amount the defendant was not entitled to any interest and which being deducted from $126,- 881.37 leaves a balance on the 15th December, 1899, $69,438.51.
The following shows the state of the account subsequent to the 15th December, 1899:
Dec. 15.
To balance...... .... ...... $69,438 14 days comp. int.....
69,596 By cash...............
15,300 00 54,296 06 Jan. 4. To days comp. int........
52 58 4,348 64 By cash........................
5,655 00 48,693 64 To 26 days comp. int
203 90 Armour J. 49,097 54 By cash...............
18,962 45 30,135 09 Aug. 16. To 198 days comp. int.....
203 90 30,338 99 By cash
.......
......... 4,953 78 $25,485 Dec. 15.
To 1 year and 121 days comp. int...............
1,932 45 $27,417 66 The above statement shows the amount payable by the defendant on the 15th December, 1901, to be the sum of $27,417.66, from which time the plaintiff will be entitled to simple interest thereon until paid. The appeal should be, in my opinion, dismissed with costs and the cross-appeal allowed with costs in this court and in the court appealed from, and the amount found due by the Superior Court should be varied as above stated.
Appeal allowed with costs and crossappeal dismissed with costs.