Exchange Vs Alderson

1167 Words3 Pages

Case: Indianapolis Car Exchange v. Alderson Issue: When doing an evaluation of any case, you should always look at all the relevant facts and issues involved before jumping to conclusions. As for this case, Mike Thurmond, the operator of Top Quality Auto Sales, a used car dealership, has financed his dealerships inventory of vehicles by creating a financing arrangement with Indianapolis Car Exchange (ICE). ICE then filed a financing statement that listed Top Quality’s inventory as collateral for the financing. After this, Top Quality sold a Ford truck to Bonnie Chrisman, who was also a used car dealer. Chrisman paid Top Quality for the truck and then proceeded to sell it Randall and Christina Alderson, who paid Chrisman for the vehicle. In …show more content…

First, when a creditor (ICE) extends credit to a debtor (Top Quality) and takes a security interest in some property of the debtor, Top Qualities inventory in this case, it is called a secured transaction. The inventory is then considered collateral for the financing that ICE provided for Top Quality, which was made clear in the financing statement that ICE filed. Any secured transactions where personal property is used as collateral is governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The UCC was revised in 2001 to better adhere to modern times, and since this case took place from 2007 to 2009, we will be applying the revised edition. There are many sections of Article 9 that should be considered when examining this case. First, the filing of a financing statement, form UCC-1 in Article 9, should be confirmed as filed with the appropriate state office. Once this has been done, confirming the attachment of Top Quality’s inventory to ICE, we can then look to confirm that the initial sale to Chrisman was paid in full to Top Quality, which it was. If this were not the case, ICE would be entitled to the remaining sale proceeds. Now we move on to the requirements of a buyer in the ordinary course of business, per Article 9 of the UCC. According the textbook, “A buyer in the ordinary course of business who purchases goods from a merchant takes the goods free of any perfected or unperfected security interest in the merchant’s inventory, even if the buyer knows of the existence of the security interest” (Cheeseman). The textbook then continues to explain that this rule is necessary because buyers would be reluctant to purchase goods if the merchant creditors could recover the goods if the merchant defaulted on the loans owed to secured creditors. These statements come from the Revised Article 9, section 320(a). This is based on the idea that the buyer purchases in good faith, meaning that they are

More about Exchange Vs Alderson

Open Document