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

1)The appellee Walker-Thomas Furniture Co is the owner of a retail furniture store in the District of Columbia. (511.1.1). 2)Appellant in this case made several purchases within a period of about 5 years, for which repayments should had been made in portions. (511.1.2). 3)The conditions of each purchase were specified on a printed document which provided the cost of each goods purchased as well as the a claim that stated that the items were rented until all goods were paid off; meaning that the goods will remain under the title of Walker-Thomas Furniture until the debt was finalized by the purchaser, and then the title would be transferred to the purchaser. (511.1.3-4). 4) Furthermore, the written document expresses that in the case that the appellant does not comply with the expressed and written agreement of payment, Walker-Thomas Furniture may reacquire such items under the contract. (511.1.5). 5)The contract is very detailed and explains the amount for each repayment period, and emphasizes that new items would be added to the previous due balance until everything was paid off, making this new additions the basis of a security interests. (511.2.1-3). 6)Evidence in this case entails that the appellant had previously made several other purchases and was able to reduce her balance and that it had the appellant herself who decided to raise her balance by obtaining a new stereo set from the appellee Walker-Thomas, although her economic situation appeared to be unstable. (512.2.1). 7)Premise number 12 from the pro section of the debate is not applicable for this case, as the appellant had been purchasing from Walker-Thomas Furniture and had signed contracts on her previous purchases over the course of 5 years, and it is evident that she was well aware of what the contract entailed. 8)The District of Columbia after a review of the retail statute was not able to find any grounds on which to impose that the contract was against public policy. (512.3.3). 9)Whether or not the court believes a law should be passed, it does not make it law until it is actually enacted. (Premise # 5 on Pro) 10) " As of 1965 the Uniform Commercial Code enacted that the court may consider a contract unconscionable and demands it unenforceable"". (Premise #7) But this does not apply to the case at hand since it would make it part of an Ex Post Facto law, as the allege crime it is said to have been committed during the period of 1957 to 1962, 3 years before the Uniform Commercial Code enacted any contracts unconscionable. 11)The 1965 Uniformed Commercial Code that enacted a contract unconscionable was subsequent to the case. (512.5.2) 12)Premise # 11 on Pro is not applicable in this case, since the appellant had the opportunity to simply reject to purchase the items, as these were not needs for the everyday living, if is the case that she had a concern for her financial stability. 13)It is the opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that "the appellant knew precisely where she stood". (513.5.2). 14)If 10, then the contract is not unconscionable. 15)If 11, then the contract is not unconscionable. 16)If 12, then the contract is not unconscionable. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 17)Therefore, it is noticeable that the contract is not unconscionable, as evidence has been provided of Williams"s awareness on the contract"s details and stipulations, as well as her control over whether or not to have made a new purchase still owing a portion of a previous balance.