Legal Opinion
Buran Equipment Co. v. H & C INVESTMENT CO.
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 26, 1983No. Civ. 52048PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KING, J.
In this case we hold that section 9504 of the California Uniform Commercial Code does not require a secured creditor to repossess the security prior to giving a notice of private sale, in order to obtain a deficiency judgment against a debtor who is in default.
Buran Equipment Company, dba Bay Area Kenworth Company (Buran) appeals from a judgment in favor of H & C Investment Company, Inc., a California corporation and Great Western Agrinomics, a Nevada partnership, etal. (H & C) after a nonjury trial. We reverse the judgment.
The dispute here involves an issue of law which makes…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Levy v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Western Decor & Furnishings Industries, Inc. v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Rushton v. SheaDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1976
- Spillers v. First National BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- Fedders Corp. v. TaylorDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1979
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Coones v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1993
- Rutan v. Summit Sports, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985
- Crocker National Bank v. EmeraldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Crane v. Citicorp National Services, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Connolly v. Bank of Sonoma CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.