An executory contract is one where both parties still have material remaining performance obligations. Section 365 gives the trustee or debtor-in-possession the choice to assume the contract, continuing it and curing any defaults, or reject it, treating it as breached immediately before the bankruptcy filing. Assumption requires curing outstanding defaults, providing adequate assurance of future performance, and, if the contract is to be assigned to a third party, adequate assurance of that assignee's future performance as well.

Rejection converts the non-debtor counterparty's claim for damages arising from the breach into a prepetition, generally unsecured claim, which typically recovers only a fraction of its face value through the plan or liquidation distribution. For commercial real property leases, Section 502(b)(6) caps the landlord's rejection damages claim at a statutory formula tied to a limited number of years of remaining rent, preventing what would otherwise be a very large future-rent claim from swamping the unsecured class.

Because assumption and rejection lead to sharply different outcomes for the same contract — continued performance and cure versus a capped, diluted unsecured claim — Juricratic models the choice as a contract-fork dial, letting a user compare the downstream exposure of the rejection-damages branch against the cure-cost and going-forward-performance branch before the debtor's election is made.

A debtor-in-possession evaluating its executory contract portfolio triages each contract by whether it is more valuable to keep (favoring assumption and cure) or exit (favoring rejection), while a landlord or vendor facing rejection quickly calculates its capped or actual rejection-damages claim to gauge realistic recovery relative to full contract value.