Renno Vathilakis Inc.
La décision Hengyun International Investment Commerce Inc. c. 9368-7614 Québec inc., (2020 QCCS 2251), est bien connue des plaideurs spécialisés en location commerciale : il s’agit d’une des premières décisions à avoir considéré l’effet de la COVID-19 sur les baux commerciaux.
Toutefois, je souhaite plutôt aujourd’hui attirer votre attention sur un autre passage. Sans entrer dans les détails du conflit entre locateur et locataire, il suffit simplement de préciser qu’une partie de ce litige traitait du transfert du bail à une nouvelle personne morale, dans le cadre d’une restructuration.
Le bail prévoyait que le locateur devait y consentir par écrit. Les parties communicant par message texte, le juge Kalichman devait déterminer si un emoji envoyé en réponse à la demande de transfert constituait un consentement écrit :
[15] According to paragraph 10.01 of the Lease, VFC was entitled to transfer its rights in the Lease provided the Landlord gave its written consent. This provision is similar to the general rules set out in the Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ).
[16] In the Court’s view, the Landlord’s consent to the assignment of the Lease has been established.
[17] In a text message on November 29, 2017 Ms. Kristi Sivret, Mr. Bladi’s spouse and the president of Quebec Inc., sent the following message to Ms. Chen:
Good morning. I was wondering if you can change the name of lease and take vitalmaxx off and put the new: 9368-7614 Quebec inc. and email the new copyThank you xoxoxoxox
[18] Ms. Chen did not reply to this request.
[19] However, two weeks later on December 12, 2017, Ms.Sivret sent another text to Ms. Chen to say:
Hi miss Chen, i put the cheque in your mailbox. For the lease you can remove vitalmaxx and replace it by: ndg fitness center and add (9368-7614 Quebec inc) beside it and send by email the new one: kristisivret@icloud.comThank you.
[20] Ms. Chen responded to Ms. Sivret’s December 12, 2017 text message with a “thumbs-up” symbol that she describes as signifying “okay”.. However, she states that her reply was in regards to the news that the deposit cheque had been dropped off and not the request to substitute Quebec Inc. for VFC. She indicates that she found it ‟awkward” that Ms. Sivret was requesting a change of name because she should have known that to make such a change, she would have had to come to the office and fill out paperwork.
[21] The Court does not accept Ms. Chen’s explanation.
[…]
[24] Ms. Chen accepted the transfer by responding positively to Ms. Sivret’s December 12, 2017 text message. She then attempted to cash Quebec Inc.’s deposit cheque. It is the Court’s view that Ms. Chen, on behalf of the Landlord, accepted that Quebec Inc. become the tenant under the Lease. At any rate, she certainly understood that a transfer had been requested, she did not refuse it and is presumed to have accepted it.
Référence : [2021] ABD 370
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire
Notre équipe vous encourage fortement à partager avec nous et nos lecteurs vos commentaires et impressions afin d'alimenter les discussions à propos de nos billets. Cependant, afin d'éviter les abus et les dérapages, veuillez noter que tout commentaire devra être approuvé par un modérateur avant d'être publié et que nous conservons l'entière discrétion de ne pas publier tout commentaire jugé inapproprié.