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

1) Appellee Walker Thomas Furniture Company in the District of Columbia rents to own house whole items to clients, including appellant Williams. (511. 1. 1, 511. 3. 3) 2) Appellee seeks to replevy all items that have been owned and paid for by appellant, which she now holds the title to all preceding item except the last item that is under a pro rata agreement. (511. 3. 4, 511. 2. 1) 3) Fully aware that the appellant was a relief client with a minimal income, needed to support her family, appellee still leased the last item knowing that the appellant would not be able to stay on track with the pro rata. (512. 1. 5 - 512. 1. 7) 4) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals believes the appellee's selling standard of practice is questionable and careless, and notes that according to the "Maryland Retail Installment Sales Act," the Court of Appeals could display relief towards the appellant. (512. 2. 2, 512. 2. 4) 5) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals also believes congress should enact the "Maryland Retail Installment Sales Act," or that congress passes legislation to safeguard people from pro rata agreements which are prone to easily deceive the consumer such as Williams. (512. 2. 4, 512. 2. 5) 6) Moreover, in the case Scott v. United States, the contract was deemed unfair by the Supreme Court, and in return awarded the party whom sued damages, but only damages equaling to the fair amount that would be fair to both parties. (512. 3. 4) 7) As of 1965 the Uniform Commercial Code enacted that the court may consider a contract unconscionable and demands it unenforceable. (512. 4. 1) 8) Also, the District of Columbia has the power to enact a contract unconscionable in common law. (512. 4. 2) 9) When the contract was constructed it is evident that at least one party was not making a clear judgment during the making of the contract, the appellee with the unconscionable standard form contract, or the appellant not understanding the terms of the contract. (512. 4. 4 - 512. 5. 1) 10) Since the appellee failed to take into consideration the excessive penalty in the contract, along with the potential comprehension of the appellant, therefore issuing the petitioner a unconscionable contract. (512. 5. 5) 11) There needs to be consideration in bargaining power in this case, because the appellee has all the bargaining power leaving Williams with no negotiation power. (512. 5. 3) 12) When the appellant had no power within the contract, she had no real choice in the matter of "commercially reasonable contracts" obligating her to sign the contract unknowing the terms and agreement burdening her decision making her engage into a contract that is unconscionable. (512. 5. 7) 13) The court can consider this contract not to be equitably and not enforce the terms due to the business standards the contract was made. (513.1. 2, 513. 2. 4) 14) Due to the contracts unconscionable the Court of Appeals remanded back down into the trail courts for a closer explanation. (514. 3. 2 - 514. 3. 3) 15) If this case seems difficult to make an opinion then the "Loan Shark" law can be used to to determine fairness. (514. 6. 6) 16) 4 -> 11 -> 13 -> 5 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 then the contract is unconscionable. 17) 3 -> 9 -> 10 then the contract is unconscionable. 18) 7 -> 13 then the contract is unconscionable. 19) 11 -> 12 -> 13 then the contract is unconscionable. 20) If 14 then the contract is unconscionable. 21) If 15 then the contract is unreasonable making it unconscionable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Therefore, it is evident that because due to the intentional manipulation of the contract and its small print, the appellee fails to acknowledge the lack of education and awareness on part of Williams, so regardless of what the contract entails, Williams should be awarded what she equally deserves. Thus the contract is unconscionable. (512.5.5, 512.1.5 " 512.1.7, 512.3.4)