party, there is circumstantial evidence that Royal Links created the paperwork used in the transaction. C & J claims the lease terms were negotiated between C & J and Outlook, but provides no explanation for the identical monthly payments and lack of any reference to the price of the beverage carts and interest rate. Although the affidavit of C & J’s CEO and president states that “[t]he lease terms were negotiated between C & J and the customer/lessee,” there is no evidence that C & J and Outlook had any contact until after Outlook signed the agreement. These discrepancies suggest that Outlook may have allowed Royal Links to arrange the terms of the lease agreement and create and prepare the paperwork manifesting the lease agreement. Compare Potomac Leasing Co., 354 S.E.2d at 211-13 (<HOLDING>), with Gulf Winds, Ltd. v. First Union Bank,
holding evidence that suppliers employees were trained to complete the finance lease documents and were authorized by the finance lessor to negotiate a finance lease was sufficient to defeat a motion for directed verdict holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to present testimony that they were induced to enter an automobile lease by promises that they could disregard terms of the lease holding that the question of whether a bankruptcy trustee or a putative lessor was entitled to the proceeds of an equipment sale depended on whether a true lease was involved when the lease is intended as a security interest article 9 applies however a bona fide lease is not affected by article 9 holding that notice of tort claim to mayor or city finance officer is mandatory holding lease agreement that explicitly stated it was finance lease as defined in article 2a of ucc was finance lease even though lessee did not direct lessor to acquire goods or right to possession and use of goods from supplier