{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

The defendants theory first virginia claimed the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The defendant's theory: First Virginia claimed the plaintiff failed to make consecutive payments and breached their contract and reserved the right to repossess the automobile. They also argue that a breach of the peace did not occur in this case, as a matter of law, because there was no confrontation between the parties. The legal issue: Did Professional Auto Recovery violate the Breach of the Peace UCC 9-609? The holding of the court: No. Effective July 1, 2001, UCC 9-609 states that secured party, after default, may take possession of the collateral without judicial process, if the secured party proceeds without breach of the peace. No evidence was obtained that Professional Auto Recovery violated the law. They protected themselves and repossessed the automobile during a time that would cause fewer disturbances. Giles entered into an agreement that obtained a senior perfected purchase money security interest in the automobile. Giles also agreed if she failed to make a payment 10 days after the due date that she would render the automobile to First Virginia. She failed to make two consecutive payments that equaled over 60 days. The judgment was decided correctly. Mallor, J., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, L. T., & Langvardt, A. (2013). Business Law, the Ethical, Global, and e-Commerce Environment. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online