The appellant leased a luxury vehicle from the respondent but returned it to a third-party dealership a few months later to purchase a different vehicle, claiming an oral agreement allowed him to do so.
The respondent sued for breach of the lease, claiming accelerated rent and damages for the loss on the sale of the vehicle.
The trial judge found the appellant liable, rejecting the argument that the dealership acted as the respondent's agent.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no evidence of agency, the accelerated rent clause was an enforceable liquidated damages provision, and the respondent had reasonably mitigated its damages.
