Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
A motion for summary judgment "may properly be granted . . . only where there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried, and the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law."
Plaintiff, General Electric Capital Corp. ("General Electric") and to Nichols Equipment, LLC ("Nichols") entered into a contract in which General Electric agreed to finance Nichols Equipment's purchase of six Mack trucks. The promissory note executed by the parties was secured by the trucks themselves. Nichols failed to make its required payments. As further security, Nichols signed an Individual Guaranty, wherein Nichols agreed to pay any sum which became due under the loan agreement. General Electric filed the present action to recover payment from Nichols pursuant to the Guaranty. An Alabama Circuit Judge ordered the surrender of the six trucks, which General Electric obtained and sold for $1,300,000. Nichols argued that General Electric conducted its sales in a manner contrary to Connecticut law. In support of this contention, Nichols cited to a Report prepared at his request by James Bodeker who concluded that the trucks were not sold, valued, or marketed in a commercially reasonable manner. General Electric Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, and in support of such motion, it also filed a motion to preclude the expert testimony of James Bodeker, which General Electric expected Nichols would offer in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court held that under Connecticut law, there was a rebuttable presumption that General Electric's sale of the Mack trucks was not commercially reasonable since it failed to provide Nichols with the required notification of the sale. Moreover, the Court held that Bodeker has sufficiently demonstrated that his analysis in this case was derived from his experiences in the concrete pumping industry. In light of the Court’s denial of General Electric's Motion to Preclude Bodeker's testimony, the court concluded that there existed material issues of fact with respect to a determination of whether the disposition of the trucks was commercially reasonable. Accordingly, the Court denied General Electric's Motion for Summary Judgment.