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

In this argument I will address each topic as is raised. Con: According to pro, Williams did not understand the agreement between her and Walker-Thomas Furniture, but what evidence can pro provide for that statement? It is obvious that if someone has been purchasing from a store for several years, the person would have a clear understanding of the contract itself. 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. There are many cases where contracts are agreed upon but never fully read. When the iTunes agreement comes up many people never even glance at the digital contract, but agrees to the terms. This is also apparent with the Android marketplace, so there is no wonder that Williams saw the contract, signed the contract, and still could not know what she was reading. The amount of fine print that goes into contracts for the so call "interest security," truly is another way for a one for one party to reap the benefits over the another. Furthermore, proving that the appellee had all the bargaining power to take advantage of the appellant whose financial standings was absolutely clear to the appellee. Con: In this case appellant started making purchases from 1957 to 1962, this period should had been sufficient to have more than a better understanding of the agreement regardless of the educational level of Williams. Pro: This I find irrelevant, because no matter how long one may sign a contract it does not mean they understand what they are signing. To have a better understanding of a document that one had no full idea as to what it entail still leaves one with the fact they don"t know what was meant to include the fine print and the contract jargon that Williams cannot be familiar with. Con: Moreover, Walker-Thomas Furniture is not at fault nor has any say in the financial matters of Williams, in the past she had been able to pay accordingly her debt with Walker-Thomas Furniture and presumably she had the same financial situation as she had when she decided to buy the stereo set. So how is it that if she was in such critical financial status was able to make purchases before? Pro: There is no evidence to her financial situation before the stereo to apply that appellee was right in manipulating Williams into signing this one sided contract. Again as stated previously, what if Williams used the stereo to teach dance classes to make a little more income so that she can help support her family. But, no what is evident here is that the appellee had all the facts on the financial situation on Williams, and as an "honest business" should take into consideration that this transaction might be a liability and not give Williams the stereo. In this case Walker-Thomas Furniture was fully aware of Williams situation and decided to utilize their greed and let Williams take the stereo to default so that they can come and take all the previous items, which she has already paid for with the exception of $167. Con: It is not Walker-Thomas Furniture"s place to reject a fair business transaction, when in the past Williams has been responsible in making her payments; in the case that someone may be at blame, then eyes should turn into the case worker for not paying attention to Williams and her actions. Pro: It is in Walker-Thomas Furniture place to see that there might be issue with repayment, which we can see there was, and not allow this transaction. Moreover, The social worker cannot be put to blame, because the contract in this case is with two parties, Williams and Walker-Thomas Furniture. Social Workers have many files with different relief clients and this transaction was done with the appellant. Con: According to pro, Walker-Thomas Furniture "did not take into consideration Williams"s education", but asking anyone if they have any school background before making a purchase would be discriminatory towards that person. Pro: Although, it might be discriminatory to ask about schooling background it is not discriminatory to sit down with Williams and explain in as, detailed as the contract is, the term that she is signing and educate Williams on what she is signing. This practice should be done on all transaction so that it wouldn"t lead to unconscionable contracts. Con: According to pro, the contract is complex and vague, but this is incorrect as there is no evidence and it is not where mentioned any level of complexity nor can we say that it is vague as we do not have read the entire contract and we just have read merely portions of it. The terminology within the contract is as any other contract would be, and to add more it is merely a general contract and was not designed to hurt the appellant as stated by pro. The appellant had the choice to not make any of the purchases and simply go to another store. Pro: Any and all contract are complex and detail as Con has stated previously, the evidence is within the contract itself. Each contract must be read entirely, as con is stating that we should read the contract so should the appellee to the appellant for a full understanding of what might be gain or lost. Even general contract can be difficult to the smartest individual. Take for example when buying a MetroCard to enter New York City subways, the purchaser is agreeing to pay for a ride home, because they would like the convenience of not walking all the way home. They got choices to walk, buy a car, or pay more for a cab, but instead they utilize the subway. When passing the turn stop that agreement entitles the subway corporation to check your bags and person, and also detain oneself when they deem fit. All subway riders agree to this by buying the MetroCard, but are not fully aware of the agreement. Furthermore, subway riders have rights and if detained or searched incorrectly the court system can award the rider with compensation. As well in this case with the Court of Appeals sending it back down to the lower courts. Con: According to pro, the court of appeals understood the case; then how come they did not ruled for Williams but instead sent it back to the lower courts? Pro: In the opinion of The Court of Appeals, "the record is not sufficient for [their] deciding the issue as a matter of law, the [case] must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. So Ordered." (513. 3. 2) The court see that there will be more cases like Williams v. Walker-Thomas furniture and wants the lower courts to gather more law so that when other cases arise their fair judgment can be made to benefit all.