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
Lost Student (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=August 11, 1965 | |date=August 11, 1965 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|overturned=Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964) | |overturned=Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964) | ||
|followed=Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964) | |followed=Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964) | ||
Line 32: | Line 31: | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |case_text_source=Quimbee | ||
}} | }} | ||
|case_treatment=Yes | |||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 02:27, July 14, 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
Reasons
Rule
A contract is unconscionable if it
- leaves 1 party without a meaningful choice, &
- includes terms & conditions that unreasonably favor the other party.