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

Though it may be hard for you to believe that Williams did not understand the agreement she was signing, it is even harder to believe that any rational person would sign such an unreasonable contract. The terms of the contract were written in complex legal jargon that would have been difficult for any common consumer to understand (511.2.1). Also, if Williams understood that the company could replevy after a single missed payment there wouldn't have been a point in paying back her default since that was the moment which Walker-Thomas was given a permanent claim to the property. Why would she bother paying the debts from her monthly installments if she knew that she would eventually lose all of the items? Con says: "It is not the Furniture Company's fault that she could not fully comprehend the contract." I would argue that it is in fact a contract writer's responsibility to ensure that a willing party comprehends the terms of a contract, on the basis that if not, there was never truly consent in the first place. How could any contract be enforceable if one of the involved parties lacks sufficient understanding what he or she is liable for? Unconscionability refers to the contract giver's responsibility to create reasonable terms for the contract signer. Though it may be reasonable for a company to reclaim their leased possessions when a client has defaulted in payment it is not acceptable for a company to exploit a client's existing debt to collect obscenely higher profits than the original stated value of the items. Con says: "In no way was Williams threatened or forced into signing those contracts." One could argue that she was forced into signing the contract by her own financial situation. If a person believes that they need an appliance but lacks the money to purchase the item, it is likely that they will agree to a lease on the agreement, especially if they do not understand the full consequences of accepting that contract. This freedom and choice you speak of implies that other furniture stores where willing to make their prices more affordable to her. If better offers were actually available it is doubtful that Williams would have agreed to her contract with the Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. Con says: "I am sure that even if the contract may even seemed to be unconscionable, it was not intentional." Of course this contract was intended to be unconscionable. No contract maker would write a contract so unfairly favorable to themselves accidentally. The furniture retailer made $14000 dollars off of $1800 worth of product specifically to capitalize on the debt of a client who was stripped of the means to ever fully pay it off. This process was repeated again with another client a month later (511.3.2). If there was not intention to extort the client, Walker-Thomas would have repossessed their items much sooner. Con says: "The Walker-Thomas furniture company is a business, and in no way should they want to deprive their customers of purchasing what they truly desire, the only thing that the Walker-Thomas Company asked is that their customers comply with each guideline of the contract." The problem here is that the guidelines were too unreasonable for the client. Once again, being that the company knew of Williams' financial condition they also must have known that the added debt to her balance it would make it impossible for Williams to keep up with her monthly installments. Any responsible business owner would have notified Williams that making this additional purchase would be unfeasible. Instead, the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company allowed their client to saddle herself with debt so that they could reclaim their products and sell them to their next victim.