Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 1-9-613
[
[
[
[
NOTIFICATION OF DISPOSITION OF COLLATERAL
To: (Name of debtor, obligor, or other person to which the notification is sent)
From: (Name, address, and telephone number of secured party)
{1} Name of any debtor that is not an addressee: (Name of each debtor)
{2} We will sell (describe collateral) (to the highest qualified bidder) at public sale. A sale could include a lease or license. The sale will be held as follows:
(Date)
(Place)
{3} We will sell (describe collateral) at private sale sometime after (date). A sale could include a lease or license.
{4} You are entitled to an accounting of the unpaid indebtedness secured by the property that we intend to sell or, as applicable, lease or license.
{5} If you request an accounting, you must pay a charge of $ (amount).
{6} You may request an accounting by calling us at (telephone number).
[End of Form]
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 1-9-613
Oklahoma Code Comment
Under old section 9-504(3) , reasonable notification must be given of the time and place of any public sale or of the time after which any private sale or other disposition would be made. The form of notice was left to the determination of the secured party and, presumably, the prior agreement with basically the debtor. New section 9-613 provides for the form of notice in transactions other than consumer-goods transactions, and new section 9-614 provides for the form of notice in consumer-goods transactions. When notice is given, following substantially the form of section 9-613 in a commercial transaction, the notice is sufficient and, therefore, commercially reasonable. Whether the notification for transactions, other than consumer-goods transactions, is deficient and, thus, commercially unreasonable because it lacks any of the information as required under new section 9-613, is a question of fact in each case. In Dynalectron Corporation v. Jack Richards Aircraft Co., 337 F. Supp. 650 (W. D. Okla. 1972), the question of commercial reasonableness was determined to be a question of law, except as to time and method of sale, which in some circumstances, the court stated, may involve questions of fact. The holding in Dynalectron is limited by new section 9-613 .
The decision of the Oklahoma Court of Appeals in First State Bank of Oilton v. Perryman, 746 P.2d 706 (Okla. App. 1987), however, is still good law. The court in First State held that, although noncompliance with the requirements in Article 9 to hold a commercially reasonable sale does not preclude a creditor from seeking a deficiency judgment, a creditor who fails to give the notice required under Article 9 on default will be subject to damages suffered by reason of such failure.