Discussion:
On April 27, 1992, Darro and Tracy Long purchased a 1980 Ford Escort for $2,795 from Auto Credit, Inc. They made a cash down payment of $300 and fi nanced the balance of the purchase price. The terms of the financing required the Longs to pay $38.84 a week for 84 weeks. The fi nancing permitted Auto Credit to seize the automobile if payments became delinquent. The Longs made 6 timely payments but returned the automobile to Auto Credit on June 17, 1992, and made no further payments. When returned, the automobile was in the same condition it was in when the Longs purchased it, with the exception of an additional 3,500 miles on the odometer. At the time of the surrender, the remaining balance due on the automobile was $2,594.02. Auto Credit informed the Longs that if they failed to pay this balance within 10 days, the automobile would be sold at a private sale. Auto Credit ultimately sold the automobile at the Billings Auto Auction on August 12, 1992, for $150. Auto Credit incurred $229.47 in expenses associated with the sale. Thus, after crediting the sales price and adding the costs associated with the sale, the Longs' indebtedness was increased by $79.47. Auto Credit fi led a lawsuit against the Longs, seeking recovery of the deficiency, which now totaled $2,934.15 with interest and penalties. The Longs fi led a counterclaim in which they contended that the sale was unreasonable pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. If you were the judge deciding this case, would you grant Auto Credit the full $2,934.15 deficiency?