In the case of Associates Commercial Corporation v. Elray Rash et ux., 1996, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving repossession of property under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The Rashes had defaulted on their truck loan from Associates Commercial Corporation and argued that they should only owe the "forced sale" value of their repossessed vehicle, not its retail value. However, ACC insisted that they owed more than what was received at auction for it. The court held in favor of Rashes stating that when a secured party chooses to retain collateral in full satisfaction of debt under UCC Section 9-505(2), deficiency or surplus is calculated using reasonable market price at time debtor is notified about creditor's intent to keep collateral; which may be either wholesale or retail depending upon circumstances but must reflect actual condition and location of goods.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Associates Commercial Corporation v. Elray Rash et ux., 1996, argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC allows a debtor to redeem collateral by paying off their debt before it is sold or otherwise disposed of. However, according to this view, if a creditor repossesses and sells collateral without providing proper notice to the debtor as required under state law, then they have acted unlawfully and should not be entitled to any deficiency judgment against the debtor. In such cases where creditors fail to comply with statutory requirements for repossession and sale of collateral, they should bear all risks associated with noncompliance including potential loss from an inadequate resale price. This approach would better align with principles underlying both contract law and consumer protection laws which aim at ensuring fairness between parties while also deterring wrongful conduct.