The trial judge found that while some maintenance was done in furtherance of the yearly certification procedure, the plaintiff fell short of its obligation under the master lease agreement. In the result, the trial judge found that the defendant was entitled to set off the amount summarized in Exhibit 52 representing third party maintenance expenses incurred by the defendant. There is no palpable or overriding error that affected his assessment of the facts relevant to this pivotal issue that would warrant our interference. See Stein v. The Ship “Kathy K”, (1975) 1975 CanLII 146 (SCC), 62 D.L.R. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) at p. 5.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.