Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

10 Mass. App. Ct. 47 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Sheffield Progressive v. Kingston Tool Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry Co.

    124 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1997)   Cited 112 times
    Holding trial court "must perform its gatekeeping function, by assessing whether the testimony 'will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue'" (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 702)

    In the instant case, of course, there is no suggestion that Peters was not in default under its loan restructuring agreement with Fleet. Finally, Peters relies on Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 405 N.E.2d 985 (Mass.App.Ct. 1980), which upheld a denial of a motion to dismiss a "collusive foreclosure" claim that collateral worth over $3 million had been sold in a private foreclosure sale for only $879,159, the full amount of the secured debt. Id. at 987.

  2. Thomas v. Price

    975 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 205 times
    Holding that "[t]o avoid a summary judgment, the nonmoving party must adduce admissible evidence which creates a fact issue"

    In support of his argument that under section 9.504(d) a private foreclosure sale may be nullified because of the purchaser's lack of good faith alone, Thomas cites two cases: In re Four Star Music Co., 2 B.R. 454, 29 U.C.C.Rep. 343 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Tenn. 1979); Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. 47, 405 N.E.2d 985, 29 U.C.C.Rep. 292 (1980). Neither one supports Thomas' proposition.

  3. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp. v. HFH USA Corp.

    805 F. Supp. 133 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)   Cited 29 times
    Holding German law did not apply, according to previous version of N.Y. U.C.C. § 1-105; "[T]he parties' stipulation will not be regarded where it would operate to the detriment of strangers to the agreement, such as creditors or lienholders."

    Therefore, cases cited by HFH indicating that the secured party may be liable to junior or unsecured creditors are inapposite. See Liberty National Bank v. Acme Tool, 540 F.2d 1375 (10th Cir. 1976); and Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 47, 405 N.E.2d 985 (1980). Those cases involve liquidation conducted by the secured party itself.

  4. Boender v. Chicago North Clubhouse Ass'n

    240 Ill. App. 3d 622 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that improper notice may be inferred where secured creditor purchases collateral for price well below market value as the only bidder at a § 9-504 sale

    The debtor has the right under section 9-507(1) to recover for "any loss caused by a failure to comply" with section 9-504's requirement that the disposition of the collateral be made in a commercially reasonable manner. ( United States v. Conrad Publishing Co. (8th Cir. 1978), 589 F.2d 949, 955; Sheffield Progressive, Inc. v. Kingston Tool Co. (Mass. Ct. App. 1980), 405 N.E.2d 985, 988.) The debtor may recover monetary damages.