Court Opinion

ID: 9532962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:26:39.216597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:52.843722
License: Public Domain

McINERNEY, Justice
(concurring specially) :
I concur in the views expressed in the majority opinion relating to the interpretation of the Uniform Commercial Code as the Code applies to the factual situation presented. It seems to me that the provisions of the Code discussed in the opinion satisfactorily dispose of the case without resort to discussion of the equitable principle of estoppel. Since the Uniform Commercial Code constitutes an entirely new approach to security transactions, the Code is plenary and exclusive, except where the legislature has clearly indicated otherwise. The discussion arguendo of equitable principles in possible derogation of the express provisions of the Code is not, in my opinion, necessary.
The security interest of the plaintiff Bank is extinguished by the return or repossession of the chattel for the reasons stated in the opinion. Any remedy available to the plaintiff Bank thereafter to recover a loss is, I think, limited to its right to seek relief against the dealer-assignor on the basis of the endorsement with recourse. In other words, Rachel Osborn should prevail because, for the reasons stated in the opinion in construing the pertinent provisions of the Code, there is no remedy available to the plaintiff Bank against Osborn. The necessary link, a perfected security interest entitling plaintiff Bank to possession of the automobile, has been severed by the security interest being extinguished. As I view th,e circumstances presented in this case, it is the lack of a remedy available to plaintiff Bank under the Code rather than estoppel to assert a right against defendant Osborn that completely controls.