Court Opinion

ID: 9579313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:53:45.428038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:26.621639
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellees assert that the sale of the secured property did not fall *122under the Uniform Commercial Code because the five day written notice provision of the security agreement prohibited sale without notice and therefore the trial court in so instructing did not err as we have found.
The security agreement provides: “Bank shall have all rights of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code and all applicable laws, cumulatively, including the right, to sell the collateral, after giving Dealer five days written notice. . . .”
Construing this provision, we find that the agreement does not make the Uniform Commercial Code inapplicable and that the five day written notice provision is a mere specification of the reasonable notification requirement of Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 504. The bank was not prohibited from selling the collateral, but in doing so without notice became subject to the liability imposed by Code Ann. § 109A-9 — 507.

Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is denied.