The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding the individual appellant personally bound by a contract and denying credit for the residual value of used equipment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly relied on handwritten entries and signatures rather than pre-printed clauses, making the doctrine of contra proferentem inapplicable.
The Court also found no error in denying credit for the equipment, as unchallenged evidence indicated it had no market value.
