Skip to main content
· 9/14/1982

Liberty Bank v. Honolulu Providoring, Inc.

Citations

  • 650 P.2d 576
  • 65 Haw. 273
  • 34 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1025
  • 1982 Haw. LEXIS 218

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding UCC § 9-501(3)(b) allows the parties to determine by agreement the appropriate standards of notification and commercial reasonableness
  • holding UCC § 9-501(3)(b) allows the parties to determine by agreement the appropriate standards of notification and commercial reasonableness
  • declining to determine if notice was reasonable under the UCC and finding that “[b]y the very terms of the note and security agreement, Liberty Bank failed to provide sufficient notice of the action within a reasonable time.”
  • minority view that § 9 — 507(1) is debtor’s exclusive remedy “has been generally criticized”
  • “sharp disagreement among jurisdictions as to the proper remedy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Richardson, Lum, Nakamura, Padgett, Hayashi

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.