K.S.A. » Chapter 84
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 84-9-627 (2026)

Determination of whether conduct was commercially reasonable

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

84-9-627. Determination of whether conduct was commercially reasonable. (a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) Approval under subsection (c) not necessary; absence of approval has no effect. Approval under subsection (c) need not be obtained, and lack of approval does not mean that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance is not commercially reasonable.

History: L. 2000, ch. 142, § 125; July 1, 2001.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Sale of collateral stock on an over-the-counter market was commercially reasonable; over-the-counter securities market was a "recognized market," shares were sold at standardized prices and sales were negotiated individually. Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041, 1083-84 (D. Kan. 2015).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2011–2015 · leading case: Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Kan. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Kan. 2015). · cites it 15× “” K.S.A. § 84-9-627(a). Several courts outside of Kansas, interpreting this same provision of the UCC, have reached the same conclusion.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Narula, 261 P.3d 898 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “” It cites K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 84-9-627(b), which controls how “disposition of collateral” may occur “in a commercially reasonable man *177 ner.”
— K.S.A. § 84-9-627(a) — 1 case
Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Kan. 2015). “” K.S.A. § 84-9-627(a). Several courts outside of Kansas, interpreting this same provision of the UCC, have reached the same conclusion.”
— K.S.A. § 84-9-627(b) — 2 cases
Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Kan. 2015). “” K.S.A. § 84-9-627(a). Several courts outside of Kansas, interpreting this same provision of the UCC, have reached the same conclusion.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Narula, 261 P.3d 898 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “” It cites K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 84-9-627(b), which controls how “disposition of collateral” may occur “in a commercially reasonable man *177 ner.”
— K.S.A. § 84-9-627(b)(1) — 1 case
Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Kan. 2015). “” K.S.A. § 84-9-627(a). Several courts outside of Kansas, interpreting this same provision of the UCC, have reached the same conclusion.”
— K.S.A. § 84-9-627(b)(2) — 1 case
Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Kan. 2015). “” K.S.A. § 84-9-627(a). Several courts outside of Kansas, interpreting this same provision of the UCC, have reached the same conclusion.”
— K.S.A. § 84-9-627(b)(l) — 1 case
Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Kan. 2015). “” K.S.A. § 84-9-627(a). Several courts outside of Kansas, interpreting this same provision of the UCC, have reached the same conclusion.”
— K.S.A. § 84-9-627(b)(l)(2) — 1 case
Ross v. Rothstein, 92 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (D. Kan. 2015). “” K.S.A. § 84-9-627(a). Several courts outside of Kansas, interpreting this same provision of the UCC, have reached the same conclusion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.