Cases Ch.8 - Contract Law
Giroux v. Malik
Fraud Case — fraud through silence
- Fraud is one of the essential elements in the formation of a contract
• 1401 (civil code)
- Malik owned the property and put it for sell. Then sold it to giroux. He tried to sell it
twice in the passed. Both of those time he listed in the destruction that there was a
problem with installing a “fausse sceptique”.
- The property had been inﬁlled. The property was not well drained and the new
municipality did not allow to put a scpetique tank so they were not supposed to build a
house on that “terrain”.
• So malik is a building lot on which you cannot build …
- He didn’t sell when he disclosed these facts
- In 1999, he didn’t disclose the fact to his real estate broker…
• Giroux comes and takes a look at the house and is interested to buy.
- doesn’t have any lawyer or whatsoever and trusts what Malik and his real estate
broker says. (you always need your own lawyer or something)
• Giroux bought the property in 1999 and payed cash 45,000$
• They do plans to build a house and when they go to make them accept the court
tells them they can’t because they can’t install a sceptique tank on the land lot.
• They sold their existing house at that time.. planning to move into the new house 6
- Giroux went to malik and asked his money back but malik refused
• they don’t have a house anymore, need to rent a house and have a land lot with no
opportunities to do something with it.
Judge says :
Malik has to pay back 45,000$ for the land lot
1 Final Review
• Malik also has to pay 10,000$ in moral damages (s. 1458)
Peter v. Fiasche
- Franchise situation
- Fiashe is an entrepreneur recognized. He has a commerce in marché de l’ouest. He
has a kiosk in the food court (smoked meet)
- Peter looses his job and Fiasche suggest him to sell him a franchise for 250,000$.
• Peter offers 200,000$ and Fiasche accepts.
- The franchise in was making a loss (-6,000$) marché de l’ouest.
• Fiasche says he is putting 100,000$ in his pockets every year (paradis ﬁscal)
- Peter didn’t have a lawyer
• so ﬁasche brought him documents and things to ﬁnalize the sale
• Peter asked a lawyer they knew if he could go through Fiasche’s documents and
the lawyer said yes but after he came back from vacation
• Fiasche says it’s now or never … couldn’t wait until lawyer came back from
• Peter comes up with 100,000$ cash down (borrowed money — on his house) and
putting it on a speculative venture
• Peter went back to see the lawyer and the lawyer didn’t want to represent them
anymore due to the fact that they gave 100,000$
- They ﬁnalize the transaction and put the restaurant in his wife's name in order for
mr.peter to be able to get unemployment pay check for 6 months again.
- They start operating and realize that the sales aren’t even near the modiﬁed
projection Fiasche told them about.
- they later realized that they could go across the street and buy their product at a way
lower price than what the franchise was selling them at.
- Federal government lady was around the restaurant — ﬁasche said it wasn’t a
problem only a lady looking and weights and measurements
2 Final Review
- About a year or so later, government seized the place du to take fraud and seized the
restaurant as an asset.
- 134,000 $ was paid by the peters… they still owed 70,000$ and now they have no
assets left or revenues
• they sued Fiasche for fraud 1401 —misrepresentation
- thus, there were never fraudulent aspect in the transaction… no proof… the
peters wanted to participate in that.
- The cause for this contract is illegal…
- after 8 years they only got back the capital sum.
- 1422 - invalid cause
Carrefour Langelier v. Cineplex Odeon
- Injunction case — breach of contract (article 1590)
• we can ask for damages when breach of contract
- 3 types of injection :
• order to do something
• order not to do something
• order to stop doing something
- carrefour langelier — landlord
- cineplex odeon — tenant
- landlord asks for an injunction — order the cineplex odeon to operate their cinema as
a cineplex and not as a guzzo cinema
- cineplex sub-lend the cineplex to guzzo but the landlord has to accept
• landlord didn’t want unless guzzo would operate as cineplex od