In 2007, Indiana Golf and Sports Turf, LLC (“Indiana Golf”), entered into two separate purchase agreements with Deere Credit, Inc. (“Deere”) for five items of golf course maintenance equipment. One agreement was for $54,745 and the second agreement was for $16,975. Each agreement contained an individual guarantee by signed by Timothy D. Spitler (“Spitler”). In 2009, Indiana Golf failed to make payments pursuant to the agreements, Deere repossessed and sold the equipment. Deere sold the equipment on an online auction site only accessible to authorized Deere dealers and eighty used equipment brokers. Other types of bidders were excluded from this private sale. Deere did not employ an outside appraiser to value the collateral before resale but did provide Spitler with notice of the sale and had the collateral inspected by an independent third party. Deere subsequently sued Spitler for $31,946.05, the amount of the deficiency following the sale of the equipment. Spitler contended that the sale was commercially unreasonable. Did the online auction format and the limitation upon the number of participants render the sale commercially unreasonable? Why or why not?