3 See International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Rojas, 10 B.R. 353 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1981); South Carolina Rentals, Inc. v. Arthur (In re Arthur), 187 B.R. 502, 505 (D.S.C. 1995) (“Lease-Purchase Agreements” with Ace TV Rentals were disguised security interests that could be managed pursuant to Section 1325(a)(5). The agreements included a VCR, refrigerator, stove and television with a total duration of 61 to 91 weeks. Ownership is transferred to the debtor after full payment, or the debtor could acquire the property at any time by paying 55% of the remaining planned payments. Under the Fourth Circuit Law, “a purchase obligation can be found even if an agreement does not expressly require the alleged licensee to make sufficient payments to permit the exercise of a call option without additional consideration.” .
. . By applying the massachusetts ESDP rules, the debtor was required to insure and maintain the dental equipment for the duration of the contract, the price of the option at the end of the period was nominal, the debtor was at risk of loss or damage, and the debtor was required to insure and maintain the dental equipment.); In re Crummie, 194 B.R. 230, 237 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1996) (GMAC “SmartBuy” is a tempe sale and warranty, not a binding contract. On the three options available to the buyer at the end of a SmartBuy contract, you pay cash for a specified amount corresponding to a “balloon” payment; sell the car to GMAC for a declared amount; or finance the balloon payment with the GMAC under conditions that are not specified – none is “executory” in the sense that it is necessary to trigger an analysis of Article 365. . .