This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1965): Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
During the period from 1957 to 1962, Ms. Williams had purchased furniture and appliances from Walker-Thomas. | During the period from 1957 to 1962, Ms. Williams had purchased furniture and appliances from Walker-Thomas. | ||
|procedural_history=Ms. Williams lost in [[Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964)]]. | |procedural_history=Ms. Williams lost in [[Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964)]]. | ||
Walker-Thomas also sued another customer seeking to re-possess (writ of replevin) "rented" items because these customers hadn't paid in full under the "cover-all provision" that required ''all'' items to have been paid for. | |||
|arguments=The customers of Walker-Thomas argued that the "cover-all provision" was [[Contracts/Unconscionability|unconscionable]]. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/350/445/74531/ | |link=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/350/445/74531/ | ||
Revision as of 16:39, July 9, 2023
| Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1965) | |
| Court | US of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | August 11, 1965 |
| Overturned | Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964) |
| Followed | Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964) |
Facts
Walker-Thomas was a rent-to-own retailer. He considered all payments made by his customers rental payments until the items were paid for in full.
Customer's maintained a cumulative balance of all their items. If a customer purchased a $800 item while still having a $50, then all the customer's purchases would have been regarded as un-paid.
During the period from 1957 to 1962, Ms. Williams had purchased furniture and appliances from Walker-Thomas.Procedural History
Ms. Williams lost in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964).
Walker-Thomas also sued another customer seeking to re-possess (writ of replevin) "rented" items because these customers hadn't paid in full under the "cover-all provision" that required all items to have been paid for.Arguments
The customers of Walker-Thomas argued that the "cover-all provision" was unconscionable.
