v. Certified 75 (7th Cir. 2008). sti Packa in SE SI jas 1 he te 0 1- 1 S 1 In 2007, Indiana Golf and Sports Turf, LLC entered into two separate purchase agreements with Deere ment. One agreement was for $54,745 and the sec Credit, Inc., for golf course maintenance equip ond agreement was for $16,975. Each agreement contained an individual guaranty by signed by Timothy D. 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 equip ment brokers. Other types of bidders were excluded from this private sale. Deere did not employ an out- side 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? [Deere Credit, Inc. v. Spitler, 2014 WL 1343025 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).]