4. 652013 B.C. Ltd. v. Kim, [2006] OJ. No. 423 (Ont. S.C.J.); 2006 CanLII 2892 The defendant rented six illuminated signs from the plaintiff. Upset that one of the signs was illuminated only sporadically, the defendant stopped payment. Later the defendant also complained that one of the signs was obstructed by trees. After repeated demands for payment, the plaintiff sued. The lease agreement contained an acceleration clause, so the plaintiff claimed the accelerated amount owing under the lease. The plaintiff established that the cause for the interrupted illumination was beyond its controlthe power supply was not its responsibility. The acceleration clause, when applied, resulted in an effective rate of interest of 26.8 percent. Should the plaintiff recover judgment for the accelerated amount? What facts are relevant and what further facts would one need to predict the outcome of this case