In the case of Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Cenance et al., 1980, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over whether repossessed vehicles sold by Ford Motor Credit Company were done so in a "commercially reasonable" manner as required under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The respondents, who had defaulted on their car loans leading to repossession and subsequent sale of their cars by Ford, argued that they should not be held liable for any deficiency because Ford did not sell their repossessed cars in a commercially reasonable way. They claimed that since all sales were private rather than public auctions and only licensed dealers could bid, it was unreasonable. However, the court ruled against them stating that UCC does not require every disposition to fetch optimal price or even mandate public auction but just requires fairness and reasonableness which is determined by facts and circumstances surrounding each sale.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Cenance et al., argued that the majority's decision to allow a creditor to retain collateral without providing notice or opportunity for hearing violated due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The dissenters believed that this ruling effectively permitted creditors to unilaterally determine whether they had complied with statutory requirements, which could potentially lead to abuses and unfair practices. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of state law, arguing it did not provide sufficient protection for debtors' interests as required by constitutional standards.