In Cobb v. Midwest Recovery Bureau Co. (295 NW2d 232 [Minn Sup Ct 1980]), the debtor, William E. Cobb (Cobb), a truck driver, sued for wrongful repossession of his truck when it was repossessed without notice by self-help repossession because of his failure to make timely payments under a retail installment purchase contract with Mack Financial Corporation (Mack). The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that where past due payments have been repeatedly accepted by a creditor who has the contractual or statutory right to repossess the collateral without notice, and the debtor is in default in payment under a security agreement, the secured party is required to give notice to the debtor prior to repossession, notifying the debtor that strict compliance with the time for payment will be required in the future or its contractual remedies may be invoked. The Court expressly stated: "if the creditor sends a letter to preserve its rights and then once again accepts late payments, another notice would be required. The second notice would be required because the acceptance of the late payment after the initial letter could again act as a waiver of the rights asserted in the letter." (295 NW2d at 237). The court reasoned that "[t]he basis for imposing this duty on the secured party is that the secured party is estopped from asserting [its] contract rights because [its] conduct had induced the justified reliance of the debtor in believing that late payments were acceptable" (295 NW2d at 236). It noted that "[t]he acts which induced reliance [in that case we]re the repeated acceptances of late payments and the occasional late charges assessed," and that such "reliance [wa]s evidenced by the continued pattern of irregular and late payments" (id.). In ruling that "the repeated acceptance of late payments by a creditor who has the contractual right to repossess the property imposes a duty on the creditor to notify the debtor that strict compliance with the contract terms will be required before the creditor can lawfully repossess the collateral," the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in Cobbs (295 NW2d at 237), noted that the essential features of the conduct of Cobb and Mack, after a second extension agreement was signed, were that Cobb never made a payment on time; Cobb was generally two or more months behind on payments; Mack accepted every late payment and assessed late charges on some of them; Mack sent several letters to Cobb threatening to terminate the contract or to pursue the contract remedies unless payment was received by certain deadlines, but failed to carry out its threats and accepted payments tendered up to five weeks after the deadlines; Mack did not notify Cobb that the contract was terminated; and Mack did not notify Cobb that it was going to repossess the truck. The court found that these facts established that the repossession by Mack was wrongful as a matter of law.