The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

First let me clarify, when I refer to "Contract 1" vs "Contract 2" I am referring to first purchase from Walker-Thomas vs. the second purchase. I believe comparing the two are crucial in examining this case because under purchase one there were no problems with the contract and problems with the contract from Williams do not arise until purchase two. As for providing the evidence of Williams incurring more debt upon herself, please refer to (512.2) "The record reveals that prior to the last purchase appellant had reduced the balance in her account to $164. The last purchase, a stereo set, raised the balance due to $678". As far as the term "debt" that may not be a term used by the business to a client that still owes money, they may, as in this case use the term balance. I feel we can all agree that when an individual has a balance owed to a business greater than zero they are indebted to the business for that amount. As for the ambiguity in the contract stating "could repossess" I believe this is not a unique sense of wording and is very common not only in contracts but in all law. Contracts and law need to have some form of ambiguity because no written words can capture every single scenario that will happen in legal conflicts. So now let"s examine the term "could repossess", in order for Walker-Thomas to even be eligible to exercise this option, an action has to occur from Williams to activate it, think of "could repossess" similar to "can be subject to arrest" in a criminal action rather than a civil action. "could repossess" and "can be subject to arrest" gives the enforces the option to exercise, just as there will be scenarios where a cop has to use discretion on whether to make an arrest or not, Walker-Thomas uses discretion on whether to repossess or not. Although Walker-Thomas was aware of Williams financial situation she was a good will customer, then upon her default Walker-Thomas used discretion of the circumstances to exercise the right to repossess, just as a police officer upon their discretion can exercise their right to arrest someone. As far as unequal bargaining power and as you state although Williams may have been the sole purpose of the choice, she may not have understood. The question lies who is responsible for these individual choices that we make? Does responsibility come with unequal bargaining power? Why throughout the first purchase there was no claim of whether Williams understood the contract or not? She understood how the payments were to be made and throughout the first purchase she was making them accordingly, why all of a sudden throughout a complete unnecessary purchase for a woman on government assistance supporting seven kids does this become a contractual problem? As I stated in round two, If this was a contractual problem there would be more instances or problems of "unfairness" to Williams occurring. This was instead an individual problem of negligence of necessity vs. non necessity. Lastly, can you please clarify on what you mean by "the contract provided no equal footing". The equal bargaining power is that to a woman in a financial position like Williams, she was eligible to finance the items and to make monthly payments. This is a positive for individuals whom cannot make payments for everything upfront.