UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
Act 174 of 1962
440.9627 Determination of whether conduct was commercially reasonable.
Sec. 9627.
(1) 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) A disposition of collateral is made in a commercially reasonable manner if the disposition is made in the usual manner on any recognized market, at the price current in any recognized market at the time of the disposition, or otherwise in conformity with reasonable commercial practices among dealers in the type of property that was the subject of the disposition.
(3) A collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance is commercially reasonable if it has been approved in a judicial proceeding, by a bona fide creditors' committee, by a representative of creditors, or by an assignee for the benefit of creditors.
(4) Approval under subsection (3) need not be obtained, and lack of approval does not mean that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance is not commercially reasonable.
History: Add. 2000, Act 348, Eff. July 1, 2001
Notes of Decisions
Bank of the West v. Hardrock Hdd Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “” MCL 440.9627(1). If a secured party fails to prove that the disposition was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the UCC, the liability of the debtor for a deficiency is limited to an amount “by which the sum of the secured obligation, expenses, and attorney fees…”
Pathward, NA v. Inlet Trucking, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9627 (2). Michigan law further specifies that “[t]he fact that a greater amount could have been obtained by a .”
Dow Chem. Employees' Credit Union v. Brenda Geiling (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“[MCL 440.9627.] In a deficiency action, it is the secured party’s burden to establish “that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance was conducted in accordance with” these provisions.”
Dow Chem. Employees' Credit Union v. Brenda Geiling (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“[MCL 440.9627.] In a deficiency action, it is the secured party’s burden to establish “that the collection, enforcement, disposition, or acceptance was conducted in accordance with” these provisions.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9627(1) — 2 cases
Bank of the West v. Hardrock Hdd Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“” MCL 440.9627(1). If a secured party fails to prove that the disposition was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the UCC, the liability of the debtor for a deficiency is limited to an amount “by which the sum of the secured obligation, expenses, and attorney fees…”
Pathward, NA v. Inlet Trucking, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2025).
“Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9627 (2). Michigan law further specifies that “[t]he fact that a greater amount could have been obtained by a .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9627(2) — 2 cases
Bank of the West v. Hardrock Hdd Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“” MCL 440.9627(1). If a secured party fails to prove that the disposition was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the UCC, the liability of the debtor for a deficiency is limited to an amount “by which the sum of the secured obligation, expenses, and attorney fees…”
Pathward, NA v. Inlet Trucking, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2025).
“Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.9627 (2). Michigan law further specifies that “[t]he fact that a greater amount could have been obtained by a .”
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.