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

According to pro the contract is unconscionable; therefore, pro states that Williams deserves justice, but so does Walker-Thomas Furniture. Pro said: 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. Con: But if this is correct and the Court of Appeals sent it back to the lower courts to apply more law as pro has stated, then why do we have a Court of Appeals for? Their function is to look at the law and statute that have been applied to a case and make the respective decisions accordingly, leaving on the side any facts on the case. In this case, the court of appeals did not do that and simply sent it back, so it would be erroneous to assume that the reason why the case was remanded to the lower court would be to rule for Williams. Pro said: 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. Con: As pro is stating above "it is the responsibility of both" so it would be unfair to blame Williams lack of understanding on Walker-Thomas Furniture, we are unaware if Williams ever asked any questions about the contract itself. Is like when you receive a bill, the sender assumes that you have received the bill since it was sent though the post office, the sender does not call you to ask if you have received the bill or not, it is assume that you have. The same with a contract, before you sign it, it is assume that you have read it and if you have any questions then you must ask. Pro said: 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" Con: What evidence can pro provide that indeed the stereo set was source of income? It is not mention anywhere that the stereo set was for the purpose of working, specially that it was stated that her source of income was a $218 monthly government stipend. Pro said: 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 won"t 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 Con: Pro says that the wealth of the appellant is minimal, but in a previous paragraph pro states the following: "She has paid to this point over $10,000 previous to the purchase of the stereo with the exception of $167", for someone that supposedly is in a bad financial status she sure has been able to afford many goods that other that may have a job or a higher stipend than her cannot even start to dream of specially for the time. Pro says: previously addressed in round 2, 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. Con: Yes, the district of Columbia had the power to enact a contract as unenforceable, but in this case it is an Ex Post Facto law, meaning that the law came after the fact and cannot be applied to the allege crime. Therefore the contract is no unconscionable because at the time it was written it was not against the law.