Opinion ID: 3015386
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Under an agreement dated September 8, 1995, Varilease Corporation (“Varilease”) leased computer equipment to Wang Laboratories, now known as Appellee Getronics, Inc. (“Getronics”), for a base monthly rate of $33,277.00. Upon termination of the lease, Getronics was obligated to “return the Equipment to Lessor . . . in the same operating order, repair, condition and appearance.” (Appellant App. at 6.) On December 5, 1995, Varilease assigned its rights under the lease to Appellant Commonwealth Capital Corp. (“Commonwealth”). The parties terminated the lease on March 31, 1999, and Getronics shipped the leased equipment to Commonwealth’s agent, Vital Technical Services (“Vital”). Commonwealth acknowledges that Vital received equipment from Getronics, and that the 2 physical serial numbers displayed on the case of the equipment matched the serial numbers of the leased equipment set forth in the Lease Agreement. However, Commonwealth noted that the electronic serial numbers 1 on the returned equipment did not match the physical case serial numbers or the serial numbers listed in the Lease Agreement. Furthermore, Commonwealth believed that the equipment was inoperative when returned, damaged beyond reasonable wear and tear, and missing some of the necessary computer manuals. Commonwealth filed suit against Getronics in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 8, 2003, Getronics renewed an earlier motion for summary judgment. On July 28, 2004, the District Court filed a Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment in favor of Getronics. This appeal followed.