Short answer. Yes. After a permitted resale, the seller is released from obligations to the original buyer and cannot be held liable for any profit made from the resale — but the original buyer remains liable for any loss the seller suffered because the resale price was lower than what was originally agreed.
What the law says
Where the goods are of perishable nature, or where the seller expressly reserves the right of resale in case the buyer should make default, or where the buyer has been in default in the payment of the price for an unreasonable time, an unpaid seller having a right of lien or having stopped the goods in transitu may resell the goods. He shall not thereafter be liable to the original buyer upon the contract of sale or for any profit made by such resale, but may recover from the buyer damages for any loss occasioned by the breach of the contract of sale.
Civil Code, Article 1533 — Unpaid Seller's Right of Resale. Read the full provision →
Three situations where resale is authorized
Article 1533 permits resale in three distinct cases. First, when the goods are perishable and continuing to hold them would mean their destruction. Second, when the original contract expressly gave the seller the right to resell in case of buyer default. Third — the most common — when the buyer has been in default for an unreasonable time and the seller has a lien on the goods or has stopped them in transit. In your situation, the third ground applies: unreasonable default justifies the resale without further ceremony, though what counts as "unreasonable" depends on the nature of the goods and the trade.
What you can and cannot recover after resale
Once the resale is made on proper grounds, the balance of obligations shifts. You are no longer bound by the original contract toward the buyer — you cannot be sued for failing to deliver to them. If the resale happened to fetch a profit above the original price, that profit is yours to keep; the original buyer has no claim on it. The flip side is your right: if the resale brought in less than the original contract price, that shortfall is the buyer's liability. That difference, plus any additional losses directly caused by the breach, is what you can claim as damages.
Notice and the question of reasonableness
The statute notes that giving notice to the original buyer of the intention to resell is not required for the resale to be valid — but it can matter. When the right to resell is based on unreasonable default rather than a contract clause or the perishable nature of the goods, the giving or withholding of such notice is relevant to establishing whether the default period was indeed unreasonable. A buyer who was never told that resale was imminent may argue the time was not yet unreasonable. Notice, while not mandatory, is evidence that supports your case.
How the resale must be conducted
Even with the right to resell, the law imposes a standard of care: the seller must exercise reasonable care and judgment in making the resale and may conduct it publicly or privately. There is one absolute prohibition: the seller cannot, directly or indirectly, buy the goods in the resale. Self-dealing in the resale would undermine the fairness of the transaction and would likely expose the seller to challenge by the original buyer. The new buyer acquires a clean title against the original buyer, which means the original buyer cannot reclaim the goods from the third party who purchased them in good faith.