Case Summary:
Amounts sought by bank for “residual value” of leased equipment were not provided for in lease agreement.  The bank contended that it was entitled to not only the rents “lost” as a result of the debtor’s failure to comply with the lease, but also an additional amount which constituted the expected value of the items at the end of the lease term.  As the contract did not specify that such damages were to be awarded in the event of default, court would construe the agreement against its drafter (the bank’s predecessor).  Accordingly, the objections to the bank’s proof of claim were sustained.

Key Terms:
Contract Disputes