The ruling in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniiture Company should be in favor of Williams.

Christal Rampersad Pro Argument- In support of Williams Proving unconscionable This argument addresses the issue of whether or not the contract in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas case is unconscionable: 1)The appellant Williams, in the Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. case was a regular customer of the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company. (511.1.1) 2)From 1957 to 1962 the appellant purchased multiple items at the furniture store (511.1.2). 3)The items were leased to the purchaser and the title remained in the furniture company"s name until all the total payments were made (511.1.3-4). 4)If the purchaser defaulted then the furniture company could repossess the items (511.1.5). 5)Williams purchased a stereo set from Walker-Thomas on April 17, 1957 and defaulted shortly after (511.3.3). 6)The furniture company then attempted to repossess the stereo as well as the previous items which in which Williams purchased as well (511.3.4). 7)The text of the contract contained evidence of complex technical wording (511.2.1). 8)If both parties are not aware of the meaning of the terms within the contract or if they do not understand the meaning of the contract then they have not consented to the terms contained in the contract (512.5.7). 9)If premises (7) and (8) are true then Williams was not aware of the terms within the contract and she did not agree to them. 10)If the understanding of the terms within the contract is questionable then the rule is that the court is to determine if the terms within the contract are so unfair that it should not be upheld (513.1.2). 11)For all of the purchases that Williams made, prior to and including the purchase of the stereo set, the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company had records of her financial information and was aware of her meager financial situations (512.1.6). 12)The back of the contract listed the name of William"s social worker and the amount she received from the government each month (512.1.7). 13)The furniture company was also aware that Williams was the sole supporter of seven children (512.1.8). 14)There is a possibility that the company used Williams financial situation as a strategy to profit from her default because they attempted to repossess all the items that Williams had previously purchased from the company if she defaulted on one of her payments (511.3.4). 15)At the time when Williams signed the contract for the stereo she was receiving $218.00 monthly from the government (513.1.7). 16)Just before Williams signed the contract for the stereo her balance at the store was $164.00 (512.1.3). 17)The total initial value of all the items the Williams purchased came up to $1,800.00 but the total she would be paying the store to gain the title of the items was $14,000.00 (513.9.1). 18)The furniture company held the bargaining power in this transaction (511.1.4). 19)Discretion could be used on the part of the furniture company when repossessing, since the contract stated that in the event of default on any monthly installment Walker-Thomas could repossess the items (511.1.5). 20)Williams did not have meaningful choice in this transaction because if she wanted the stereo then she had to agree to the standard contract (512.5.2). 21)Williams did not understand the terms of the contract and the contract was unfair therefore the contract is unconscionable (513.1.2). The furniture company also had the bargaining power which meant that Williams did not have meaningful choice therefore according to the general understanding of unconscionability this contract is unconscionable (512.5.1). The Walker-Thomas Furniture Company"s contract is unconscionable because Williams did not comprehend the full meaning of the terms contained in the contract and the circumstances surrounding the transaction of the case was unfair. Although the company was aware of Williams unfavorable financial situation they still sold the stereo to her which showed irresponsible business dealings on the part of the Furniture Company as well as an attempt to exploit financially unstable victims such as Williams. Since the contract was standard it negated the meaningful choice that the purchaser should have. The furniture company had the upper hand in this transaction and they could choose whether to repossess or not.