Sale of Collateral. Calcote obtained an automobile loan from ...

[ap345]

Sale of Collateral. Calcote obtained an automobile loan from Citizens & Southern National Bank, with the bank maintaining a security interest in the car. On March 28, 1984, after Calcote had defaulted on the loan, the bank repossessed the vehicle. On the following day, the bank sent a certified letter, return receipt requested, to Calcote informing her of the repossession, of the bank's plans to sell the auto at a private sale in May 1984, and of her right to demand a public sale of the vehicle. Although the letter was sent to the address on the bank's records and at which the bank had repossessed the car, Calcote never received the letter. On April 19, 1984, it was returned to the bank stamped unclaimed. On May 11, 1984, the car was sold at a private sale to which over 150 dealers had been invited. When Calcote learned that the car had been sold, she brought an action against the bank, claiming that she had not been properly notified of the repossession and sale and that the private sale was not a commercially reasonable method of disposition. Was sufficient notice given to Calcote, and was the private sale commercially reasonable?

Question 2

In Armstrong v. Food Lion, the Armstrongs were beaten by employees of a grocery store. They sued the store. The South Carolina high court held that the store was not liable because:
 a. the employees were not servants of Food Lion when they attacked the Armstrongs
  b. the employees were acting within the scope of their employment or in furtherance of Food Lion's business when the attacked they Armstrongs
  c. the employees had only worked for Food Lion for 6 months when they attacked the Armstrongs
  d. the employees had worked for Food Lion for more than 6 months when they attacked the Armstrongs e. none of the other choices are correct

[bigsis44]

Answer to Question 1

Sale of collateral
Yes, to both questions. Sufficient notice was given to Calcote, and the private sale was held to be commercially reasonable. The court found that the bank's procedure for providing notice complied with the minimum requirements of state law in that the bank had promptly sent the notice, had sent it to the appropriate address, and had sent it via certified mail. Although in some cases merely mailing a letter may not be sufficient notice, particularly if the letter is unclaimed, in this case the court found the notice to be reasonable and sufficient. As to the sale, the law allows the debtor to require a public sale of collateral. If there is no demand, the secured party may sell the collateral in any commercially reasonable manner. Here the private sale was found to be reasonable.

Answer to Question 2

e

[ap345]

Gracias!

[cpetit11]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it