Information Leasing Corp. v. GDR Investments, Inc.
152 Ohio App. 3d 260, 787 N.E.2d 652 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a lessee's obligation to make payments under a commercial finance lease becomes irrevocable and independent of the vendor's performance upon acceptance of the goods (a 'hell or high water' clause), but the lease may still be challenged on grounds of unconscionability or if the lessor consented to its cancellation.
Facts:
- Avtar S. Arora, owner of GDR Investments (an Exxon station), sought to acquire an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) to increase business.
- A representative from a third-party vendor, Credit Card Center (CCC), presented Arora with documents for the ATM.
- The CCC representative told Arora not to worry about reading the documents, describing his signature as a mere formality.
- Arora, while busy with customers, signed a five-year, non-cancelable commercial lease for the ATM with Information Leasing Corporation (ILC) without reading it, and also signed as a personal guarantor.
- The lease explicitly disclaimed all warranties and stated ILC was not responsible for the vendor's (CCC's) acts, a feature known as a 'hell or high water' clause.
- The ATM was delivered to Arora's station.
- Shortly after the lease was signed, CCC went bankrupt and ceased providing services for the ATM.
- Arora's gas station subsequently went out of business, and the ATM was left unused until ILC retrieved it several months later.
Procedural Posture:
- Information Leasing Corporation (ILC) filed a lawsuit against GDR Investments and Avtar S. Arora in an Ohio trial court to recover $15,877.37 for breach of a commercial lease.
- Following a bench trial where Arora represented himself, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, GDR and Arora.
- The trial court found that ILC had not complied with its contractual obligations and that Arora had appropriately canceled the lease.
- ILC, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals, with GDR and Arora as the defendants-appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court apply the correct legal standard when it invalidated a non-cancelable commercial finance lease by finding that the lessor failed its contractual obligations, rather than analyzing the lease under the specific provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code governing finance leases?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorman, Judge
Yes. The trial court erred by failing to apply the correct legal analysis. A commercial finance lease is generally non-cancelable under the UCC, making the lessee's payment obligation to the lessor independent of the vendor's performance. The trial court should have analyzed the case under this framework and considered applicable UCC defenses such as unconscionability or consent to cancellation, rather than treating it as an ordinary contract that the lessee could cancel due to the vendor's failure. The lessor's only obligation in a finance lease is to provide the financing for the goods, which ILC did. The case must be remanded for a new trial to determine if defenses like procedural unconscionability (based on Arora's claim of being misled) or consent to cancellation (based on ILC's conduct in retrieving the ATM) apply.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the legally distinct and often harsh nature of UCC 'finance leases.' It establishes that courts must analyze these agreements under the specific statutory framework of the UCC, not general contract principles. The decision clarifies that while 'hell or high water' clauses are presumptively valid, they do not foreclose defenses such as unconscionability (both procedural and substantive) and consent to cancellation. This precedent serves as a guide for lower courts, emphasizing that a lessee's claim of being misled during contract formation, while balanced against a duty to read, is a valid issue for trial in challenging the enforceability of an otherwise ironclad finance lease.
