Full bibliography | SCC-Authors-Cited

Charpentier, É. (2012). Pour une interprétation (très) large de l’article 1437 du Code civil du Québec. In J.-L. Baudouin, B. Moore, & Chaire Jean-Louis Baudouin en droit civil (Eds.), Mélanges Jean-Louis Baudouin (p. 255). Éditions Yvon Blais.

Jestaz, P. (2005). L’obligation et la sanction: à la recherche de l’obligation fondamentale. In P. Jestaz (Ed.), Autour du droit civil: Ecrits dispersés, idées convergentes. Dalloz.

Grammond, S. (2010). La règle sur les clauses abusives sous l’éclairage du droit comparé. Les Cahiers de droit, 51(1), 83–116. https://doi.org/10.7202/044137ar

This study analyzes the arguments employed by Quebec judges when deciding whether a clause is abusive under article 1437 of the Civil Code of Québec. This analysis is inspired by the common law distinction between the substantive and procedural aspects of contractual unfairness. Thus, courts often invoke substantive factors to assess a clause’s abusive character, such as the equivalence of the obligations, proportionality, reciprocity, commutativity, departure from the usual obligations or from the essential obligation and causal link. However, it was found that courts also rely on procedural criteria to assess abuse, such as the information given to the adhering party concerning the contents of the contract as well as compliance with the adhering party’s reasonable expectations.

View on www.erudit.org

Masse, C. (1993). Civil Liability. In Barreau du Québec & Chambre des notaires du Québec (Eds.), Reform of the Civil Code, vol. 2‑B, Obligations III, V, VI. Presses de l’Universitee Laval.

Pineau, J. (1993). Theory of Obligations. In Barreau du Québec & Chambre des notaires du Québec (Eds.), Reform of the Civil Code, vol. 2‑A, Obligations I, II. Presses de l’Universitee Laval.

Moore, B. (2003). Les clauses abusives: Dix ans après. Revue Du Barreau, 63(1), 59–101.

Lemieux, M. (2000). Les clauses abusives dans les contrats d’adhésion. Les Cahiers de droit, 41(1), 61–93. https://doi.org/10.7202/043593ar

The following text examines the provisions under the Civil Code of Québec pertaining to contracts of adhesion, and more specifically to article 1437 in which courts are allowed to reduce or nullify obligations arising from abusive clauses in such contracts.

View on www.erudit.org

Leveneur-Azemar, M. (with Lequette, d’Yves). (2017). Étude sur les clauses limitatives ou exonératoires de responsabilité. LGDJ-Lextenso.

La responsabilité civile vol. 2, Responsabilité professionnelle (9e édition). (2020). Éditions Yvon Blais.

Jobin, P.-G. (2004). L’étonnante destinée de la lésion et de l’imprévision dans la réforme du code civil au Québec. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil, (4), 693–700. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1066527

View on dialnet.unirioja.es

L’Heureux, N. (with Lacoursière, M., & Université Laval Centre d’études en droit économique). (2011). Droit de la consommation (6e éd.). Éditions Y. Blais.

Deshayes, O., Genicon, T., & Laithier, Y.-M. (2017). La Cause a-t-elle réellement disparu du Droit français des Contrats? European Review of Contract Law, 13(4), 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1515/ercl-2017-0022

Has French law abandoned the concept of « cause » ? That is the impression one might have on reading the new provisions of the Civil Code, introduced by the Ordonnance of 10 February 2016, and certain commentaries. Accused of being a source of deviance and misunderstanding, the « cause » had to be eradicated, it was said, so that clarity, security and attractiveness of the Code be restored. A closer look, however, shows how far from reality this much-told fable actually is. Two sets of factors bear witness to the perennity of the « cause » in the new law. Firstly, the vast majority of previous « cause »-based solutions are taken up by new provisions. The « cause » remains but its presence is masked by a new designation (« motive » or « purpose », for example). Secondly, there are situations where, in a quest for coherence or in order to fill a gap, a « cause »-based reasoning will prevail exactly as it did before the reform. When all is said and done, it is a strange reform that removes the name while allowing the substance to remain.

View on www.degruyterbrill.com

Deslauriers-Goulet, C. (2014). L’obligation essentielle dans le contrat. Les Cahiers de droit, 55(4), 923–950. https://doi.org/10.7202/1027854ar

A review of recent jurisprudence and doctrine points to the emergence of a new category of contractual obligation : the essential obligation. An array of texts, more numerous in France than in Québec, highlights and attempts to define the notion. Nevertheless, because of the quantitative and qualitative importance of the elements that characterize each proposed doctrinal definition, none is truly satisfactory. We have no choice but to admit that the number of concerns and criticisms raised in connection with the notion make it difficult to circumscribe its actual meaning. In this article, after setting out some doctrinal definitions and the main uncertainties surrounding the notion, we will try to uncover its true meaning by reviewing the ways in which it is used. We will show that the essential obligation has earned a place in the increasingly broad and specialized set of restrictions on contractual freedom.

View on www.erudit.org

Jobin, P.-G. (with Cumyn, M.). (2017). La vente (4e édition.). Éditions Yvon Blais.

Ghozlan, S. (2015). La notion d’obligation essentielle dans le cadre du contrôle des clauses abusives : Étude des systèmes juridiques français et québécois. Revue juridique Thémis de l’Université de Montréal, 49(2), 399. https://www.canlii.org/fr/doctrine/doc/2015CanLIIDocs4942?loginActive=true#!fragment//BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoByCgSgBpltTCIBFRQ3AT0otokLC4EbDtyp8BQkAGU8pAELcASgFEAMioBqAQQByAYRW1SYAEbRS2ONWpA

Stéphanie Ghozlan, 2015 49-2 Revue juridique Thémis de l'Université de Montréal 399, 2015 CanLIIDocs 4942

View on www.canlii.org

Pineau, J. (with Burman, D., & Gaudet, S.). (2001). Théorie des obligations (4e éd. par Jean Pineau, Serge Gaudet.). Éditions Thémis.

Pineau, J. (1992). La Philosophie Generale du Nouveau Code Civil du Quebec. Canadian Bar Review, 71(3), 423–444. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/canbarev71&i=429

Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.

View on heinonline.org

Jobin, P.-G. (1993). La révision du contrat par le juge dans le Code civil. In G. Brière, E. Caparros, & A. F. Bisson (Eds.), Mélanges Germain Brière (p. 400). Wilson & Lafleur.

Berthold, G.-A. (2016). Peut-on donner d’une clause et reprendre de l’autre?: essai sur la cause comme instrument de contrôle de la cohérence matérielle du contrat. Éditions Yvon Blais.

Goldstein, G., & Mestiri, N. (2003). La liberté contractuelle et ses limites — Étude à la lueur du droit civil québécois. In J. Pineau & B. Moore (Eds.), Mélanges Jean Pineau (p. 299). Éditions Thémis.