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

According to premise 2 of the con"s argument the appellant, Williams, entered a contract with the appellee to rent to own house whole items starting in 1957 and lasted until the terms of the contract could be have be met. (511. 1. 2) Clearly upon entering the agreement for the stereo in 1962 the appellant was familiar with signing the contract, but not necessarily understanding the terms on the contract. The awareness of the conditions that the counter argument address on premise 3 evidently describes, "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," is correct, but also what is printed on the document that holds concern is that Williams" contract stated, "Significantly, at the time of this and the preceding purchases, appellee was aware of appellant"s financial position." (512. 1. 3) This is alerting, because as stated by The Court of Appeals although that cannot "condemn" the appellee"s business practices, but many questions arise as to those business practices. (512. 2. 1, 512. 2. 2) Furthermore, the need to express the practices of the appellant is essential due to note 1 describing that "her account showed a balance of $164 still owing from prior purchase," and then when Williams purchased the stereo for $514.95 the "total payments amounted to $14,000 visibly buying her house whole items for an amount that is multiple times the amount the items original price. (513. Note 1) The terminology within the contract as well as found in Premise 4 makes the contract along with the argument vague and unclear due to words like "may or could" allowing room for uncertainly creating an unknown action that can take place. (511. 1. 5) Additionally, the appellant did not take into consideration the "obvious education or lack of it, [having] a reasonable opportunity to understand the term." The appellee chose to hurt the appellant by allowing the transaction to take place fully aware of their client"s position. The dissenting opinion agrees the appellee is at fault, because as pro"s argument applies the Loan Shark law should have been considered making premise 17 true. Appellant"s contract is complex as stated by con"s premise 5, "the contract is very detailed" illustrating the difficulty in understanding the contract. Also, con"s premise 6, 7, 12 got addressed previously in paragraph 1 sentence 5, because pro"s premise 19 explains how premise 12 is correct, because together with premise 11, 12, 13 the contract is unconscionable because of the unevenness of the contract along with the general unawareness or lack of education. Moreover, the bargaining power lies with the appellee; although, a stereo might not be needed to one person it might be a way of income for another. (Ex: if Williams used her stereo to teach dance classes to provide an income for her family) (513. 6. 4) Premise 8 and 9 will be addressed as follows, the District of Columbia court may have not found any ground, but the Court of Appeal, a higher court, understood this case needed more law and remanded it back to the lower court for trial. Furthermore, the court system has the power to enact a common law we they see fit, or address the Loan Shark Law. Premise 10 and 11 according to con"s argument address that the law was not in effect as of 1965, but I disagree, because the case at hand is "Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965). It might have been the case that the lower court did not have this law but it is unclear. The Uniform Commercial Code give judges the power to not enforce a contract if they deem choose. (512. 4. 1) Premise 13 has already been address prior. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Therefore this contract is unconscionable due to the judgment of the appellee.