$2*$ Mekan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ vs$.$ TANFORD Property Management Inc. Case Summary:Mekan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ purchased commercial bakery equipment, including a dough mixer and oven, on an installment plan for use in leased commercial premises. The equipment supplier retained title until full payment. However, the bakery faced financial difficulties and ceased payments for both the equipment and the leased premises. Dispute:TANFORD Property Management Inc., the owner of the leased premises, attempted to exercise the right to seize the cooking equipment due to non$-$payment of rent. Simultaneously, Mecan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ sought to repossess its goods due to non$-$payment by the bakery. Key Issues: Whether Tanford Property Management Inc. had the right to seize the cooking equipment for non$-$payment of rent.Whether Mecan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ had the right to repossess its goods due to non$-$payment by the bakery.How the court would reconcile the competing interests of the parties involved.Legal Analysis: Court Decision: The court determined that while DMI Property Management Inc. had the right to seize property for non$-$payment of rent, the retention of title clause in the credit agreement between Emcan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$ and the bakery prevailed. Therefore, DMI Property Management Inc. could only exercise its right to seize the cooking equipment after paying the balance due to Emcan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.$

$1.$ Summarize the facts of the case, including the parties involved, the nature of the dispute, and the key issues raised.

$2.$ Analyze the competing interests of Tanford Property Management Inc. and Mekan Bakery Equipment & Supply Ltd$.,$ focusing on their respective rights and obligations.

$3.$ Discuss the relevant legal principles applied by the court in resolving the dispute, including the interpretation of lease agreements and retention of title clauses.

$4.$ Present the court's decision and reasoning behind it$,$ explaining how the court reconciled the competing claims of the parties involved.

$5.$ Reflect on the implications of the court's decision for both landlords and suppliers in commercial lease situations, and discuss broader lessons learned regarding property rights and contractual arrangements.