La relation contractuelle entre un vendeur et un acheteur ne se transforme pas en contrat sui generis de durée indéterminée par le seul passage du temps

par Karim Renno
Renno Vathilakis Inc.

Comme nous en avons déjà traité, une succession de contrats à durée déterminée peut - dans certaines circonstances particulières - être considérée équivalente à un contrat à durée indéterminée. Reste que pour conclure en ce sens, il faut que la Cour y découvre un élément d'intention et il faut que les circonstances soient telles que la situation apparente (contrat à durée déterminée) ne reflète plus la réalité de la relation. De telles circonstances sont difficiles à imaginer dans le cadre d'un contrat de vente comme l'illustre la décision récente de l'Honorable juge Silvana Conte dans Tribec Metals Ltd. c. E. Hofmann Plastics Inc. (2016 QCCS 6205).

Dans cette affaire, la juge Conte est saisi de la réclamation de la Demanderesse pour marchandises vendues et impayées. La Demanderesse ajoute également une réclamation de 145 000$ pour résiliation abusive de ce qu'elle considère être un contrat à durée indéterminée.

En effet, la Demanderesse fait valoir que la durée de la relation contractuelle entre les parties est telle qu'elle est en réalité une relation contractuelle à durée indéterminée.

La Défenderesse conteste cet argument et fait valoir qu'il s'agit purement et simplement d'une relation entre un vendeur et un acheteur. Peu importe le nombre d'achats, chaque transaction demeure une relation contractuelle bien définie.

Après analyse, la juge Conte se rallie à la position de la Défenderesse. Elle souligne à cet égard que les faits de l'affaire n'amènent pas à conclure que la relation entre les parties s'est transformée en relation sui generis de durée indéterminée:

[33] Tribec relies upon the following facts in support of its argument that the parties were governed by an innominate contract of indeterminate duration: 

•  Hofmann and Tribec had a continued uninterrupted business relationship from 1994 until December 2012;  

•  Tribec was Hofmann’s sole supplier of rods and grips aside from receiving samples from other suppliers; 

• Hofmann would send 3 or 4 purchase orders one month in advance in order for Tribec to order supplies from third parties and maintain adequate inventory;  

• Tribec would send its inventory of supplies to Hofmann, to keep them informed of what products they had in stock;   

• Hofmann would consistently leave scrap metal in the wooden crates and Tribec would dispose of same;   

• Tribec helped with some production issues when Hofmann purchased its own machine;  

• Tribec purchased a better machine to produce the rods for Hofmann; and  

• The sales to Hofmann represented 50% of Tribec’s total annual sales. 

[34] The Court is of the view that Tribec and Hofmann’s contractual relationship falls within the provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec dealing with nominate contracts of sale. Article 1708 of the Civil Code of Quebec (“CCQ”) states: 

1708. Sale is a contract by which a person, the seller, transfers ownership of property to another person, the buyer, for a price in money which the latter obligates himself to pay.  

A dismemberment of the right of ownership, or any other right held by a person, may also be transferred by sale. 

[35] In this case, the respective obligations of the parties were governed by the purchase orders and invoices for the sale and delivery of metal rods and grips. Tribec itself qualifies its obligations towards Hofmann as “the sale and delivery of goods”. 

[36] The length of the relationship and the volume of sales do not necessarily render the contractual relationship between the parties as one that is sui generis and of indeterminate duration.  

[37] This case can be distinguished from the Court of Appeal case in E. & S. Salsberg inc. v. Dylex Ltd. relied upon by Tribec. In Dylex, the court examined the particular facts of the case to conclude that the parties entered into a verbal agreement that did not fall within any of the known nominate contracts. The Court held: 

[…]  

Quant à la qualification d'un tel contrat, c'est avec raison que le juge de première instance précisait qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un mandat, ni d'un contrat d'emploi et pas davantage d'un contrat d'entreprise. Plutôt, s'agissait-il d'un contrat innommé d'une nature particulière, comme d'ailleurs l'étaient les relations des parties. 

[38] Each case must be determined on the basis of its own particular facts and circumstances. In this case, Tribec sold metal rods and grips to Hofmann upon receipt of purchase orders. There were no other obligations or agreements entered into the parties other than the fact that Hofmann agreed to submit its purchase orders one month in advance. This agreement ensured that Tribec would only purchase the raw materials it needed in order to fulfill future purchase orders from Hofmann. This fact does not change the nature of the contractual relationship between the parties.   

[39] Tribec argued that it delivered the rods in wooden crates and disposed of any scrap metal that remained therein upon return of the crates. However, the evidence was that the wooden crates were necessary in order to avoid damage to the rods during transportation. Moreover, Tribec never complained about the metal scraps left in the wooden crates and tolerated this extra work given that Hofmann was its best client. In any event, Tribec added the scraps to their own metal scrap container for sale to a third party.  

[40] Therefore, the Court concludes that the parties were bound by successive contracts of sale, each of a determinate duration. As such, Tribec’s claim for damages for the abusive resiliation of the contract is dismissed. 

[41] Finally, the Court underlines that Hofmann acted in good faith when it ceased purchasing rods and grips from Tribec in December 2012. This decision was based on the breach of trust caused from learning that Tribec short-shipped it by approximately 10% of its orders and after it attempted to meet with Mr. Bichara to resolve the matter.

Référence : [2016] ABD 517