Narrative Opinion Summary
The financing lessor (appellee) selected a contractual remedy that permitted recovery of all accrued and accruing rent and payments upon the lessee's (appellant's) default. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the lessor had an obligation to mitigate damages based on the chosen contract provision. As a result, the court upheld the judgment for damages, affirming that the lessor is entitled to collect all amounts owed under the lease following the appellant's default. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice Danahy and Justices Lehan and Hall.
Legal Issues Addressed
Contractual Remedies for Defaultsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the financing lessor's choice of a contractual remedy that allowed for the recovery of all accrued and accruing rent and payments upon the lessee's default.
Reasoning: The financing lessor (appellee) selected a contractual remedy that permitted recovery of all accrued and accruing rent and payments upon the lessee's (appellant's) default.
Entitlement to Damages Upon Defaultsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision affirmed that the lessor is entitled to collect all amounts owed under the lease following the appellant's default, supporting the judgment for damages.
Reasoning: As a result, the court upheld the judgment for damages, affirming that the lessor is entitled to collect all amounts owed under the lease following the appellant's default.
Mitigation of Damages Not Required Under Specific Contract Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected the argument that the lessor was required to mitigate damages due to the specific contract provision chosen, affirming the lessor's entitlement to collect all amounts owed under the lease.
Reasoning: The court rejected the appellant's argument that the lessor had an obligation to mitigate damages based on the chosen contract provision.