Court Opinion

ID: 9291650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-29 17:08:59.605717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:11.235991
License: Public Domain

Lewiton, C.J.

concurring:

I concur in the order remanding this case for a new trial. As stated in the opinion by Foster, J., the reported evidence did not warrant a finding that the plaintiff’s sale of the defendant’s motor vehicle, after repossession, was "carried out in a commercially reasonable manner” as required by G.L.c. 255B, §20A (C), and the denial of the defendant’s requesting ruling #11, asserting such insufficiency of the evidence, was erroneous. Since this issue is vital to a determination of the rights of the parties, there must be a new trial.