The appellants leased farm equipment from the respondent and subsequently defaulted on their payments.
The respondent seized and sold the equipment, then sued for damages for breach of the leases.
The trial judge assessed damages using general contract principles, awarding the respondent the deficiency owed to its financing agent.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the damages flowing from the breach of a chattel lease should be calculated in accordance with general contract principles, extending the rule previously applied to land leases.
The Court also found that the appellants failed to prove that the respondent had not reasonably mitigated its damages.
