The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for the shortfall after the appellants defaulted on a vehicle lease and the vehicle was repossessed and sold.
The sole ground of appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the lease schedule incorporated an earlier master lease agreement.
The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the master lease agreement governed the lease, as it was expressly referenced in the schedule.
The appeal was dismissed.
