§ 11-9-627. Determination of Whether Conduct Was Commercially Reasonable

1. Greater amount obtainable under other circumstances; no preclusion of commercial reasonableness.    The fact that a greater amount could have been obtained by a collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance at a different time or in a different method from that selected by the secured party is not of itself sufficient to preclude the secured party from establishing that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance was made in a commercially reasonable manner.
2. Dispositions that are commercially reasonable.    A disposition of collateral is made in a commercially reasonable manner if the disposition is made:
   1. In the usual manner on any recognized market;
   2. At the price current in any recognized market at the time of the disposition; or
   3. Otherwise in conformity with reasonable commercial practices among dealers in the type of property that was the subject of the disposition.
3. Approval by court or on behalf of creditors.    A collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance is commercially reasonable if it has been approved:
   1. In a judicial proceeding;
   2. By a bona fide creditors’ committee;
   3. By a representative of creditors; or
   4. By an assignee for the benefit of creditors.
4. Approval under subsection (c) of this Code section not necessary; absence of approval has no effect.    Approval under subsection (c) of this Code section need not be obtained, and lack of approval does not mean that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance is not commercially reasonable.

History. Code 1981, § 11-9-627 , enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 362, § 1.

Law reviews.

For note discussing repossession and foreclosure as creditor’s remedies under the Uniform Commercial Code, see 3 Ga. L. Rev. 198 (1968).

For article, “The Revisions to Article IX of the Uniform Commercial Code,” see 15 Ga. St. B.J. 120 (1977).

For article surveying developments in Georgia commercial law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 33 (1981).

For comment on a secured party’s burden of proof in seeking a deficiency judgment after resale of collateral, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 397 (1981).

For article, “Nonjudicial Foreclosures in Georgia: Fresh Doubts, Issues and Strategies,” see 23 Ga. St. B.J. 123 (1987).

For annual survey of commercial law, see 43 Mercer L. Rev. 119 (1991).