Opinion ID: 1366677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Commercial Reasonableness of the Public Sale

Text: We have previously held that public sales of repossessed equipment must be commercially reasonable. Savage Constr. v. Challenge-Cook, 102 Nev. 34, 37, 714 P.2d 573, 574 (1986) (construing California Commercial Code § 9504(3)). The conditions of a commercially reasonable sale should reflect a calculated effort to promote a sales price that is equitable to both the debtor and the secured creditor. Id. at 38, 714 P.2d at 575. The quality of the publicity, the price obtained at the auction, [and] the number of bidders in attendance are important factors to consider when analyzing the commercial reasonableness of a public sale. Id. at 37, 714 P.2d at 574. It is impossible to determine the quality or potential efficacy of Allen's publicity concerning the sale because we are unable to review the actual advertisement that was purportedly published in the L.A. Times. Allen simply argues that the invoice conclusively proves that it complied with the California notice statute. We disagree. The invoice does not contain any reference to Dennison or the particular equipment that was due to be sold; it only shows that Allen was responsible for a nine-line advertisement published on April 3, 1988. The content of the advertisement is critically important to its purpose: attracting the proper kinds of prospective bidders. Without the advertisement, we must conclude that the quality of the publication was deficient. A further indication of commercially unreasonable publicity may be found in the price obtained for the equipment and the number of bidders in attendance at the public sale. The record is bereft of evidence concerning these two aspects of the sale, thus preventing a meaningful analysis of the subject. We disagree with Allen's assertion that, [i]t is ... undisputed that [Allen] recovered the Engine Analyzer and sold it in Santa Fe Springs for $16,224.87. The only evidence of the purchase price is provided by an inadequate one-line entry in Allen's Deficiency Balance statement. Dennison acknowledges Allen's statement, but emphasizes the dearth of corroborative evidence in the record. Finally, the record is completely devoid of any evidence relating to the bidding process or participants.