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

1. Walker Thomas Furniture Company operates a retail furniture store in the District of Columbia (511.1.1) 2. During the period from 1957 to 1962 Williams purchased a number of household items from Walker Thomas Furniture Co. (511.1.2). 3. Upon purchasing these items, Williams entered a contract. 4. The contract stated that title of the items would remain in Walker-Thomas until the total of all monthly payments made equaled the stated value of the item (511.1.4) 5. The contract then continues to state that in any event of a default in payment of any monthly installment, Walker Thomas has the right to repossess the item (511.1.5) 6. Williams did not complete her payment of her previous purchase therefore Williams was still entitled to repossess the item that were under her contract even if meant taking items purchased five years ago because they still weren't paid off (511.1.1 & 512.2.2) 7. As a result, the debt incurred at the time of purchase of each item was secured by the right to repossess all the items previously purchased by the same purchaser and each new item purchased automatically became subject to a security interest arising out of the previous dealings. (511.2.3) 8.Williams was aware of the contracts and her responsibility to support, feed and clothe seven children and herself on a government stipend of $218. __________________________________________________________________________________ C. Therefore, the agreement made between Walker-Thomas and Williams was not unconscionable and Williams was aware of the contract she was entering and the conditions they were under (513.5). The court should uphold the contract. Williams was well aware of her debt and chose to buy a stereo that was not an essential item to her everyday living. Walker Thomas should not be held accountable for Williams's decision to buy a stereo that was well far from her financial resources. Williams did not enter this contract under any duress or coercion. It was on her own will. Williams was well aware of her contract and knew the consequences that follow. She knew she was responsible to feed, clothe and support seven children and herself and only depended on government assistance. Williams had a prior relationship with the company when she bought an item in 1957 , this would have been her second time purchasing with the same agreements. How is that unfair? If she knew in details what the contract consisted of. Williams was customer for five years which can presumably mean she knew what the contract covered and what will happen if she failed to make her monthly installment payment. Walker Thomas Furniture Co. was questioned by his decision of selling the stereo to Williams, whom had knowledge that Williams was solely dependent on a government stipend of $218 but they did question her necessity to buy the stereo? Although, Walker-Thomas knew her financial income, it was not their job to turn down a client who wanted to purchase a stereo. It's their job to sell. Would you expect a sales person to automatically turn you down if you were willing to buy an item from them? The contract specifically stated that at any event of default payment Walker- Thomas had the right to repossess the items back. So, how is the company taking advantage of Williams by repossessing the items that she defaulted to pay? You say the contract was unconscionable. What do you define unconscionable as? Both parties had knowledge of the contract. How was it a one-sided contract? Was it unconscionable because Williams lost everything she didn't pay for? Was unconscionable because Walker-Thomas followed what the contract stated he was entitled to do?