Case Citation
Legal Case Name

In Re Pioneer Ford Sales, Inc. Ford Motor Company Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit1984Docket #372545
729 F.2d 27 10 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 524 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24768 11 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1303

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A bankrupt Ford dealer was barred from assigning its franchise to a financially weak Toyota dealer over Ford’s objection. The court held that federal bankruptcy law respects state laws allowing a franchisor to reasonably withhold consent to an assignment, preventing the transfer.

Legal Significance: This case established that the Bankruptcy Code’s restriction on assigning certain executory contracts, 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1)(A), is not limited to personal service contracts but applies whenever applicable non-bankruptcy law excuses a party from accepting performance from an assignee, even for commercial reasons.

In Re Pioneer Ford Sales, Inc. Ford Motor Company Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Pioneer Ford Sales, Inc., a bankrupt Ford dealer, sought to assign its franchise agreement to Toyota Village, Inc. The assignment, facilitated by Pioneer’s secured creditor, would increase the value of the bankruptcy estate compared to Ford Motor Company’s parts buy-back offer. Ford objected to the assignment. The proposed assignee, Toyota Village, had a history of operating losses and failed to meet Ford’s minimum working capital requirements for its dealers. Applicable non-bankruptcy law, a Rhode Island dealer protection statute, provided that a manufacturer’s consent to a franchise assignment could not be “unreasonably withheld.” The bankruptcy and district courts approved the assignment, believing that the relevant section of the Bankruptcy Code, § 365(c)(1)(A), applied only to personal service contracts and that the proposed assignee provided “adequate assurance of future performance.”

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1)(A) prevent a bankruptcy trustee from assigning a debtor’s executory contract when applicable non-bankruptcy law permits the other party to the contract to withhold consent to the assignment for commercially reasonable reasons?

Yes, the franchise agreement could not be assigned. The court reversed the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1)(A) prevent a bankruptcy trustee from assigning a debtor’s executory contract when applicable non-bankruptcy law permits the other party to the contract to withhold consent to the assignment for commercially reasonable reasons?

Conclusion

This decision is a foundational case for the "hypothetical test" interpretation of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex e

Legal Rule

Under 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1)(A), a trustee may not assign an executory Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolo

Legal Analysis

The First Circuit rejected the lower courts' narrow interpretation that 11 U.S.C. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor inci

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The exception to contract assignment in 11 U.S.C. § 365(c)(1)(A) is
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+