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

As each con argument articulated why this contract is not unconscionable, a closer examination will exemplify all the reason why this case gets remanded and why Williams deserves justice. Con: According to pro, "the evidence in Williams not understanding the contract is within the Court of Appeals remanding the case back to the lower court, they sought the contract unenforceable and needed more law". But if this the case the Court of Appeals would have applied what according to pro was correct and rule for Williams, at the end of the day the Cou9rt of Appeals" job is to make corrections within the law; but in this case they only sent it back to be reanalyzed, it does not specifies that the lower court should change their ruling, if that was the case then the Court of Appeals would have done it themselves. Pro: The Court of Appeals understood that there was something wrong in the case that they could not make a decision on it without the lower courts applying more law within the case. If the Appeals court deemed the appellee was right, they would have agreed to the prior opinions and then appellant would have to seek another way to appeal or take it as a lost. If the Court of Appeals believed Williams to be absolutely correct then they had the authority to not enforce the contract and give Williams, her ruling. But instead the Court of Appeals understood there was not something right with the decisions of the lower courts and found that more law needed to be done in order to make a decision on this case. Moreover, due to the lack of law in the case the Court of Appeals chose not to go with Premise 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, but rather send it back to establish a ground for unconscionable contract such as this one in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture. Con: According to pro, "there are many cases where contracts are agreed upon but never fully read". It is not Walker-Thomas Furniture responsibility, it was the appellant Williams responsibility to make sure she read the contract and was sure of the purchase she was making; pro said himself "each contract must be read entirely"" Pro: It is the responsibility of both parties to understand the terms and agreement and for in the origins of a contract for both parties to come to a fair agreement that both parties are happy with their agreement. Understandably, the correction that needs to be address in understanding "read entirely" is that one may read words, but do they necessarily understand what they are reading. One can sound out a word in a foreign language or repeat a word in a foreign language, but does that mean they understand it? No, it is done on a daily bases just like contracts and many people agree without understanding the repercussion. If the appellant had good business habits or was an honest dealing company, they would have took into consideration and turn away from this contract. Con: According to pro, "the appellee had all the bargaining power to take advantage of the appellant whose financial standing was absolutely clear to the appellee". This is incorrect because the appellant Williams had the power to simply not purchase any items from the appellee Walker-Thomas Furniture, it does not seem like her financial standings got in the way before when she made the first purchases for which she almost paid in full. So how is it that on her previous purchases she was able to pay but she allegedly had financial problems? Pro: Con Wisely, but invalidly argues that points of the case that is unknown, it is false to thing something is luxury when in fact it could be a source of income. Take for example the argument made in round two, if the stereo was needed for a source of income like private lessons in dance where they need a source of music. This is clearly stated in the dissenting opinion. (513. 6. 1 " 513. 6. 4) So to acknowledge she has been paying until this point reasonably brings an understanding that this item may have been needed. Con: According to pro, "there is no evidence of Williams" financial situation before the stereo", but if Williams was not able to afford the stereo set on her $218 government stipend why would she buy it anyways? Pro: This notion is argued on the previous paragraph. But further what must be stated is what was mentioned in round two with note 1. She has paid to this point over $10,000 previous to the purchase of the stereo with the exception of $167. The court must see that the business practices, that are questionable, are unfair and inequitable to remand it back to the lower courts. Con: Walker-Thomas Furniture is merely a retail store not a financial adviser. According to pro, is it Walker-Thomas Furniture place to see that there might be issue with repayment"" I doubt that Walker-Thomas Furniture can foresee the future, it appears that Walker-Thomas Furniture based the new purchase on the fact that the appellant was able to pay before, therefore there is not expressed intention to defraud the appellant which entails that the contract is not unconscionable. Pro: Although, correct the appellee is not a financial company they look into each contract to make sure they will not lose money on the transaction. Although, no one can foresee the future, the wealth of the appellant is minimal and as a good business practice (like when buying a car if your credit is bad more than likely you wont get the car) the appellee should have took into consideration the stipend. Furthermore, by accepting the contract of appellant Williams they could see that she probably wouldn"t be able to afford the item. But due to their general Contracts and fine print, their interest security grants them the opportunity to never lose on any deal, but gain more wealth in the process. Their unfair and unequal business jargon allows them to take advantage of everyone in need. This strong notion must have added to the opinion of the Court of Appeals making them feel that the lower court must reanalyzed the case to have a fair opinion. Con: Another piece of this case that pro did not take into consideration is the fact that for the contract to be unconscionable there must have been a law that stated that it was unconscionable, and at the time of the contract there was not any law stating the above mentioned. Pro: The is previously addressed in round 2, but as of William v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1965) there was a law passed by the Uniform Commercial Code of 1965 that allows the judge to rule a contract in unenforceable. Furthermore, The District of Columbia has the power to enact the contract as unenforceable in common law like Maryland Retail Installment Sales Act, or take into consideration the Scott v. United States of unfairness. But it is understood that the Court of Appeals remanded instead of affirm, reverse, the fact of the matter is that during this case the "Loan Shark" Law was in place for the Court of Appeals to go in this direction. The appellant"s contract is unconscionable because it was unfair and the Court of Appeals needed reanalyzing of the case. Likewise, this will clarify the terms of the contract and illuminate the unconscionable contract along with ill business habits of the appellee.