我所接觸的案例中，由商務租賃合同引發的糾紛占了很大比例。見過專業人士走流程但不走心的合同給客戶造成高達將近一百萬的後續訴訟官司，纏訟數年，律所換了幾家，還是一筆血淚賬！以法院判例為依據，以解牛庖丁為鼻祖，幫助大家領略魁北克法中精髓是本文的主旨。
我已經說過n多次了，商務租賃合同與民用租賃合同幾乎是井水和河水的兩個概念。後者的法理依據以《魁北克民法》中的相關章節為主；而商務租賃合同，就基本上以雙方你情我願簽下的合同文字為準，願打認罰、沒有後悔藥可吃是基本原則，除非合同有嚴重偏失，即便如此，通常合同也會聲明：如果部分條款被廢止，合同其他部分仍然具有法律效力。所以，因為各種理由急著淌渾水的各位，您真的想清楚、看明白了麽？
案例：魁省小額法庭2010年Disessa v. Damar
原告為房東。房客與原房東的合同期內，房東通過地產買賣合同接手了。現房東在合同期結束後控告原房客，要求其支付“附加租金”（additional rent）。附加租金是相對“基本租金”（basic rent）而言的。
借用判決書的法官用語： “ It is often the case that commercial leases provide for a basic rent that is fixed and an additional rent that fluctuates in accordance with various charges associated with the operation of the building that are passed onto the tenants proportional to the floor space of each lease. ”商務租賃合同的常見做法是固定一個基本租金，然後再附加一個根據整個物業的運營狀況，按照占地麵積分攤到各租戶的浮動開銷，稱為附加租金。
本案合同中關於基本租金的文字是這樣的：“The basic rent does not include any other expenses incurred by the tenant for the premises, example: electricity, heating, insurance. The tenant is solely responsible for any expense that may occur for the operation of the business”基本租金不包括房客租用場地的消耗，比如：用電、供暖和保險。房客全權自負所有因商業經營造成的開銷 （翻譯文字精準、敢把原文亮出來的沒有幾個吧？嗬嗬~~~）。
2008年1月，房東在其會計的慫恿之下（ at the recommendation of their accountant真沒瞎用詞，不信往後瞧），房東給房客給房客開了一個賬單，包括保險費，保養維護費，雜七雜八還加了稅，一共$6,580.76。
判決書一般都會講本案仲裁的焦點是什麽。本案訴訟焦點為：“The question the Court must decide is whether the agreement between the initial landlord and the Defendant, which agreement was assigned to the Plaintiffs at the time of sale, includes a responsibility for additional rent for such matters as the landlord's insurance and landlord's municipal taxes and school taxes.”房客與原房東是否已經達成了有關附加租金（包括房東的保險、市稅和校稅承擔）協議，該協議在地產買賣時是否過渡給了新房東。這裏的agreement其實指的是合同文字之外的約定俗成，即：我這麽做了，你也沒有質疑，所以就算我們約(定)了哈!
本案的一個法理精髓是：合同文字不是孤立的，前後是有映照關聯的，中間隔著多少頁的文字都有可能。一旦關聯成立，就是一個新的證據論點。關於這點，本人有實戰經驗：一個房客瀕臨破產，可租賃合同還有溜溜的3年呢，意味著房東要損失3年的房租收入。而合同本身存在重大缺陷，沒有抵押擔保條款，所以，房東去找了律師，可得到的答複是：那就隻能跟著對方的破產程序走，沒轍！我把相關合同通讀的結果是從首尾兩處找到了關聯條款，構成了擔保的意涵，從而牽製了另一份相關合同的執行，房東成功挽回將近5位數字的損失！
本案中，法官對合同文字有這樣的解讀： the expression:
“The basic rent does not include any other expenses incurred by the tenant for the premises, example: electricity, heating, insurance. The tenant is solely responsible for any expense that may occur for the operation of the business”
must be read together with the specific insurance clause that reads as follows:
"The tenant shall not do or permit anything to be done in or upon the leased premises, nor to bring or keep anything therein which will in any way increase the rate of fire insurance on the building or on the property or goods therein, in which case the tenant shall pay the complete increased portion of premiums upon the building as may be required by the insurance companies as a result of the business or trade carried on in the leased premises within two days of notice thereof from the Landlord."
也就是說：關於基本租金的第一段文字（前麵已經翻譯過）必須與第二段文字放在一起詮釋。第二段文字的大意是，如果房客的經營行為導致租賃場地保險金額增加，房客要承擔相應的份額。法官還特別補充了：reading these two clauses together, it is clear that, except where the landlord can demonstrate that there is an increase in insurance premiums required as a result of the business carried out by the tenant, the landlord assumes its own insurance costs. 把上下兩段文字一起看，很明顯，除非房東可以證明物業的保險金額上漲是由房客的商業經營造成的，否則，房東自己要承擔保險成本開銷。
關於繳稅的部分是另一個法理精髓：In terms of taxes, while the conduct of the parties makes it clear that, with the change of the taxation system, the tenant agreed to assume his portion of the business taxes assessed to the landlord, the evidence is equally clear that no claim was made either by the previous landlord nor by the Plaintiffs for a proportional share of the ordinary property and school taxes assessed to the owner. 雖然雙方都確認：一旦涉及稅務係統變更，房客同意分攤房東的營業稅部分。可是證據也相當清楚地表明：無論前任房東還是現任房東，之前都沒有向房客提過出分攤房東物業資產和校稅的要求。重點來了：What's more, the conduct of the parties clearly establishes that there was no such intention. 雙方的合同行為表明：這種意圖不曾存在。也就是江湖語言：我這麽做了，你也沒有質疑，所以就算我們約(定)了哈!
最後，法官驚堂木下：the Court comes to the conclusion that the Defendant no owes no further amounts. （在合同期結束時，被告已完成所有合同義務）法庭認定被告不承擔任何其它債務。
