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

You assume Williams did not understand the contract, however she still had the ability of adding her social worker on the contract. For what purpose? If she didn't understand it, she had two options. One would be to come back with her social worker since she added her on the contract to explain to her what is being said in the contract. Her second option would've been for her to not enter a contract she was not "understanding". How can you possibly say the contract was created and set up for customers to be misled? In other words because Williams failed to do her own due diligence and find out what the contract entitled and you assume everyone who buys in Walker-Thomas Co. does not understand the contract? As I stated in my previous arguments, the contract was conscionable because the contract is not made for anyone to default, doesn't matter their financial resources, their employment, etc., is a general contract to keep everything in black and white. Walker-Thomas Co. nor any other company have the time to profile every single one of their customers. They could ask questions to uncover their initial need but that does not mean they are supposed to turn down anyone or change their contract for a specific person. Your second argument is that Walker-Thomas Co. is unconscionable for making a contract with a person whom was dependent of a government stipend of $218. Aside of being a government dependent citizen, she had to support, clothe and feed seven children and herself. According to you this is unconscionable because Walker-Thomas Co. knew this and her financial situation. But what I don"t seem to understand is, why buy a new stereo when she only owed $164? You questioned Walker-Thomas Co. conscious but do you question Williams? It is not the company responsibility to feed and support those seven children, is hers. Do you really expect for any company to turn down a client who is willing to exchange their money for an item they desire? You question the company"s good sense, but where is Williams good sense then? Williams had a number of options to choose from instead of getting herself into a binding contract agreement, which had consequences if broken. To summarize my point for your argument is that the company shouldn't be held responsible for something Williams should"ve considered before entering a contract. She was aware of the contract, even her social worker name was added somewhere into the agreement. Walker-Thomas Co. was handling a business not a financial counseling center for his clients. You are repeatedly saying is unconscious. But why? Besides the fact that Walker-Thomas Co. knew Williams financial situation and the fact she only owed $164 in her previous purchase and they let her buy a stereo of her choice. What else is there? I wouldn't"t consider it unconscionable because as I said before, the company are there for their reasons. They do not have to do anything besides keep business running and provide customer service. Williams on the other hand could"ve paid her $164 balance and wait until she was stable enough to buy her stereo. Was her stereo a necessity? Would you like to enter to a store you've purchased before and have the owner tell you "Can you back later when you have your financial situation stable and pay us our money back." yea. I don"t think so. Besides the fact that it sounds rude, it sounds unprofessional and that would just create bad reputation against the company. I have yet to see a store in which they turned down a customer that is willing to enter a contract for the item they desire. Williams is a well aware women that could asked for her social workers opinion or even a sales associate before entering a contract. If she felt she wasn't sure enough with the contract she could' ve walked away and wait until she had somebody, a third party explain the contract for her. Walker- Thomas Co. stated in his contract that all items would be under his name until the items are fully paid off by the purchaser therefore I believe the court should uphold the contract in which Williams voluntarily entered.