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
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|issues=Do courts have the power to refuse to enforce [[Contracts/Unconscionability|unconscionable]] contracts? | |issues=Do courts have the power to refuse to enforce [[Contracts/Unconscionability|unconscionable]] contracts? | ||
|arguments=The customers of Walker-Thomas argued that the "cover-all provision" was [[Contracts/Unconscionability|unconscionable]]. | |arguments=The customers of Walker-Thomas argued that the "cover-all provision" was [[Contracts/Unconscionability|unconscionable]]. | ||
|holding=Yes. A court may refuse to enforce unconscionable contract provisions. | |||
|rule=A contract is unconscionable if it | |||
#leaves 1 party without a meaningful choice, & | |||
#includes terms & conditions that unreasonably favor the other party. | |||
|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 16:48, 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.
The DC Court of General Sessions ruled against the customers including Ms. Williams. Next, the Appellate Court affirms.Issues
Arguments
Holding
Rule
A contract is unconscionable if it
- leaves 1 party without a meaningful choice, &
- includes terms & conditions that unreasonably favor the other party.
