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 |
(Bring over content from the older version Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
|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. | |holding=Yes. A court may refuse to enforce unconscionable contract provisions. | ||
|reasons=If one party has a gross bargaining advantage, then the other party has no real choice. If such a party signs a contract, not knowing all the terms of the contract, then it is hardly likely that his consent was given to all the terms. | |||
|rule=A contract is unconscionable if it | |rule=A contract is unconscionable if it | ||
#leaves 1 party without a meaningful choice, & | #leaves 1 party without a meaningful choice, & | ||
#includes terms & conditions that unreasonably favor the other party. | #includes terms & conditions that unreasonably favor the other party. | ||
|comments=The court gave a test for unconscionability: "Are terms so extreme as to appear unconscionable according to the mores and business practices of the time and place?" | |||
|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 16:57, 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
Reasons
Rule
A contract is unconscionable if it
- leaves 1 party without a meaningful choice, &
- includes terms & conditions that unreasonably favor the other party.