The appellants challenged a judgment enforcing liability under a guarantee arising from a commercial loan transaction.
The Court of Appeal held that, despite an inaccurate characterization of the original loan transaction by the motions judge, there was consideration for the guarantee because the loan was advanced to the numbered company formed to carry on the business.
The court also held that the lender was not required to realize on its security before demanding payment and was entitled to leave the assets to the landlord.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
