entirely the provision that requires that a consumer trends action the fair market value of the car be used as a means of calculating the deficiency in all situations that miss accrue to all of the commentators that we presumption in section twenty b applies here and that presumption was established in our view by honest black book the so called accepted retail publication that provides a trade estimate of the retail value because first of all the numbers rebut it the commission reasonable sale was commercially reasonable options and it produced a value of eighty nine hundred dollars the presumption which was established by the black book is that the car was worth ninety eight hundred there is no evidence whatsoever that an auction sale produces a retail market value in fact the only case that on the sites for the proposition that an auction sale could end point that is fair market value was the j f k suit case which is entirely  on this but we would like to emphasize is that the first aspect is notice so when the notice goes ups the consumer has to be told fairly accurately what her rights are under the law and her rights as fact many creditors do use the correct thing massachusetts legislature said it was the safe harbor during this for forty years they've been using the wrong others at least for this case this is the wrong notice around it yes secondarily if you consider what the ruling would look like if your proposition were to hold true that would mean that there's a far more to go requirement interest so but that it is entirely  across the board this is a consumer protection statute specifically and acted by the legislature to prevent consumers from being subject to be unreasonably low commercial auction prices so to suggest that the two statutes can't be read in  entitles the consumer as a matter of law and that's comment to the section nine hundred fourteen to statutory damages thought wrongly that the fair work in value had to be proven as an element of establishing that the notice was inaccurate in fact the notice is inaccurate because it mis states and inflates their actual deficiency obligation that cannot be reasonable as the u c itself described it because it's inaccurate and when it's under reasonable and when it's inaccurate then section nine hundred twenty five of the u c c it provides for minimal stashed away damages and in fact despite the absence of any actual damages whatsoever so the first noticed the deficiency demand told her that she owed the difference between the sale proceeds and the outstanding loan balance and that is a violation of gristle as the ministry found she found the fair market value determined it had to also under the expressed terms of precludes on disability to collect any deficiency whatsoever these violations are also per se violations of chapter ninety three ed beginning going back to the notice idea accurate information in titles the consumer to statutory damages and the c c thank you thank you is what we're talking about here ok i thought the legislature said actually he should look at the plan and that's the presumption the presumption is that you may be able to recover by saying this is a good enough sale in markets where i can and make a decision in the statute lisa disaffect issue it in a proceeding for the fish and see that is absolutely correct again that best out what we're talking about here but assuming that presumption applies in the first place my only point is that the presumption which boss and lawsuit against the debtor doesn't just send them a letter that says please pay us whatever the number of those files a lawsuit and with with all that entails you obtain a judgment and garnish their wages you can go up to the bank account cetera when man happens riseth is is right there in full force and providing this presumption providing this protection for the debtor in that circumstance what we're talking about here has nothing to do with that there's no harm is not sued plaintiff my point is that the best of what i already said the presumption that we've talked about this morning really doesn't come into play me in this part of the process the presumption comes into play and that unusual circumstance when the credit time to his determined what inputs opinion is that efficiency sure to found in the lawsuit they're ongoing collection efforts as well as activities that affect people's credit rating i'm not saying it's meaningless  i'm saying it's a bit different but it's it's a different type of situation than what we're talking about when a creditor actually files a lawsuit against the better it's a whole different that does it does it make it more important for the provisions in the uniform commercial code that are pretty consumer friendly pretty plain english explain what their rights are there's theirs but if you look at my wrists the only provisions that it has about the notice talk about the notice you not a pleasant process for anybody certainly not the consumer is it's not good for business but my point is that condit complied with the law you know what it complies with that two thousand dollar threshold it doesn't doesn't  send it deficiency notice to people whose balances before possession were less than two thousand dollars it's doing what it can what it believes it needs to do to comply with the law by sending legitimate lawful notices disagreed with by every knowledgeable commentator to review this the national consumer law center's amicus brief points this out as well and it seems as though the magistrate judge certainly accepted the premise that the fair market value determine a so i don't understand how there could be an interpretation of these two statutes which are designed to read in a complementary fashion in such a way as to allow a notice to be sent to consumers across the state y