Price

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Price

Good Law
163 Cal. App. 3d 745·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1532·210 Cal. Rptr. 17·40 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 330
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 15, 1985A023234California2,944 words

Opinion

Opinion

Panelli, J.

Plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford) appeals from a judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendants George M. Price and Antech Plastics, Inc. (respondents) in its action for a deficiency judgment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the public notice provisions of section 9504, subdivision (3), of the California Uniform Commercial Code are mandatory or permissive. For reasons stated below, we conclude that these provisions are mandatory. Therefore, due to Ford’s violation thereof, it was not entitled to a deficiency judgment.

Facts

The relevant facts are as follows:

In April 1980, respondents, pursuant to a finance agreement, purchased milling equipment from a seller who immediately assigned its contractual rights to Ford. Subsequently, in October 1981, respondents entered into a lease-option with Ford for the acquisition of other industrial machinery. In both transactions, Ford was given a security interest in the machinery as collateral for repayment of the total financed amount of $158,990.87. Respondents defaulted as to both agreements in June 1982, and on December 2, 1982, Ford obtained a writ of possession by stipulation. Shortly thereafter, Ford…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.