This case considers the following question:  Should the failure of a secured creditor to give proper notification of a disposition of collateral bar or otherwise limit the right of the secured party to collect a deficiency from the debtor or proceed against other collateral?  The case also refers to the court's earlier resolution of a related question:  Should the failure of a secured creditor to conduct a commercially reasonable disposition bar or otherwise limit the right of the secured party to collect a deficiency from the debtor?  Except with respect to consumer transactions, these questions have subsequently been answered by adoption of U.C.C. 9-626(a) in Revised Article 9.  Nevertheless, the opinion is useful for its discussion of the possible answers from which the drafters of Revised Article 9 had to choose.  Moreover, Revised Article 9 explicitly declines to answer these questions where presented in the context of a consumer transaction.  U.C.C. 9-626(b).  Thus, the opinion is useful because it suggests some of the possible answers that courts or legislatures may choose for consumer transactions.