Coleman, J.c.c., Temporarily Assigned.
[136 NJSuper Page 478] This is an action by the secured creditor for an alleged deficiency due after the sale of a repossessed automobile it had previously sold. Defendant, appearing pro se , raised three defenses:
(1) improper notice of sale; (2) the sale of the automobile was not in a commercially reasonable manner, and (3) fraud.
The facts are as follows:
In April 1974 plaintiff repossessed the automobile for delinquent payment. After repossession defendant negotiated with plaintiff a new payment schedule and then defendant regained possession. In June 1974 defendant became newly delinquent in payments, and on June 20, 1974 plaintiff repossessed the automobile.
On June 26, 1974 defendant received notice that a private sale of the automobile would occur on June 29, 1974 at a designated time and place. On said date Carteret Auto Parts, Inc. was the only party that appeared at the sale and submitted a bid of $50. Plaintiff, feeling that this bid was low, held the automobile over three months, until October 1, 1974, allegedly waiting for additional bids. Not having received further bids, plaintiff sold the automobile to Carteret Auto Parts, Inc. for $50.
It further appears that when the automobile was offered for sale on June 29, 1974 it was not mechanically operational because defendant and his son were giving the automobile a tune-up, and the spark plugs, points and condensor had been removed preparatory to installation of new ones. The air filter also had been removed and placed on the floor of the garage near the automobile. This was the condition of the automobile when it was towed from defendant's garage.
At no time before or after the repossession did plaintiff make any attempts to determine, by inspection or otherwise, why the automobile was not mechanically operational. The most routine observation under the hood of the automobile by one slightly familiar with the trade would have detected the missing parts.
After plaintiff repossessed the automobile on June 20, 1974, defendant inquired of plaintiff if he could buy the automobile. The essence of the plaintiff's response was that
defendant could not buy the automobile at the private sale. While this response effectively precluded the defendant from protecting his financial interest in the chattel, the Court is not persuaded that there was fraud involved.
We turn next to defendant's contention that the plaintiff failed to give reasonable notification of sale thereby violating the commercial reasonableness limitation of N.J.S.A. 12A:9-504(3). Though reasonable notice is not defined under the Uniform Commercial Code , official comments suggests that "at a minimum it must be sent in such time that persons entitled to receive it will have sufficient time to take ...