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

According to you, the way Walker-Thomas Co. make contract is "shady"? Define shady. What makes it shady to you? You also state that the company's policy is set up to manipulate people. How? How the company policy is is set up to manipulate their clients? What exactly in this policy or contract makes it manipulative? As I stated before, these clients are not first time buyers. For instance, Williams knew what the contract entitled, there was no manipulation there nor a gray area for Williams to misunderstand what she was entering herself into. You may believe that Walker-Thomas is taking advantage of his clients with his contracts but in reality he is giving them a way to get the items they desire at a reasonable proposition that will help both parties. Walker-Thomas gave them the option to enter the contract, pay their monthly payment AND take the item they wish home the same day they entered the contract. Where have you seen a person that wants to take advantage of others do that? Walker- Thomas could've demanded for Williams to pay her items on the day she picked them out. He had many options as on how to run his business and how he"ll like to structure his payment plans. You said scamming their customers. Define scamming for me, what it means to you? How is the Walker-Thomas Co. scamming their customers when they initially benefited from this contract? Williams had immediate access to the items of her choice and Walker-Thomas gained some type of monetary resource from this contract. That is how contract works, correct? To my understanding what you're stating is that the company is deceiving their clients to believe they are there to help them with their needs but in reality they're taking the small amount of money they have left and repossess items they've defaulted on. These clients that you believe are being deceived were given a contract. In this contract it goes in detail that any item that has not been paid in full, it is still in Walker-Thomas name (511.1.4). In your argument you mentioned that Walker- Thomas Co. makes their policy difficult for their customers to understand, that they lack education and or have low monetary means. How would you know that? What makes you believe Williams or any other client was unable to understand the contract or policy that are to be followed by them or that they lack education? Are you stating they are not fit to do any contract due to no education background? That alone would be unfair for anybody to be turned down. What are you trying to implying by monetary means? The contract is made for those who lack monetary means? Or that the contract is made to confuse those with low monetary means? If so, how is that relevant? How is their monetary means a responsibility to Walker-Thomas Co.? The contract is not made specifically for one client, is a general contract. However, if you are trying to imply that the contract is made for those with low monetary means, you"re right. It may not be specifically for them but they are the ones who can benefit the most from it. A contract in this case is like what we now call "Lay " Away" or "Rent-a- center". Depending on each stores conditions, you are able to pick the items you desire and make a monthly or weekly payment until the items are paid off. Walker- Thomas are helping those with low monetary means be able to buy what they want at a reasonable condition. The fact that the Walker-Thomas Co. knew Williams had low income is not his responsibility. If that"s the case he would have to turn down a lot of his clients because we can"t presume that Williams is the only client they have with low monetary means. Let"s say, for example if Walker-Thomas Co. was to turned down Williams because her low monetary means that would"ve created another issue and probably would"ve been taken to court for not being fair and discriminatory. Don"t you think? The reasons you gave for why does the company service "low budget people" are a bit vague. We can only assume Walker-Thomas Co. only offers customer service and sales to low budget people. 1.However, you"re correct they do work with customers and help them come into an agreement on how to pay their items. Of course these items are going to be paid in cash. How else would you expect them to pay for their items? With other used items? How is that going to work for both parties? 2.How they target low income clients? According to you how does Walker-Thomas Co. know who will default in making their payment? How would he know who to target to repossess his items that are already being used and probably looked worn out ? 3.Williams total value was $1800 however, the interest on her items rose up to $14,000. Similar to a credit card, you make a purchase, you don"t pay the amount right away so you end up paying a certain percent of interest on the balanced owed. Is fair because she was aware of this.