Craft bought her 1986 Charger in April 1986 from a dealer for $9,884. Her conditional sales contract was then assigned to C & S. In April 1987, Craft notified C & S she could not maintain the payments and during the week before May 1 she returned the car to the dealer. C & S retrieved the car and sent Craft the notice letter required by OCGA 10-1-36
on May 6, 1987. The car was then sold at private sale on May 28, 1987, bringing $3,900.
C & S argues that the verdict is contrary to law and the evidence because it proved the sale was commercially reasonable. As acknowledged by C & S, "the burden of showing that the disposition of collateral pursuant to [OCGA 9-11-504
] was commercially reasonable rests with the secured party. [Cit.] This burden may not be satisfied without establishing affirmatively that the 'terms' of the sale were commercially reasonable. This includes a burden upon the secured party to show that the resale price was the fair and reasonable value of the collateral." Wagner v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 155 Ga. App. 729
, 730 (3) (272 SE2d 500
) (1980). What C & S asks is for us to hold as a matter of law that the bank officer's opinion of the worth of the car was sufficient to legally require a finding in its favor. We cannot. See Farmers Bank, Union Point v. Hubbard, 247 Ga. 431
, 437 (276 SE2d 622
) (1981); Wagner, supra.
There was also a factual issue as to whether the bank had mailed the notice letter within ten days of the repossession. This was peculiarly a matter for the jury's determination and the jury may not have reached the issue of commercial reasonableness.