United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 350 F.2d 445
In the 1965 Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit tackled a significant issue in contract law: unconscionability. This case set a legal precedent for when a contract may be considered unenforceable due to unfair terms.
The case involved Williams, who bought items from Walker-Thomas Furniture on a credit plan with a cross-collateral clause. This meant if Williams missed one payment, the company could take back all items, even those already paid for. When Williams defaulted on a stereo payment, Walker-Thomas tried to repossess everything. Williams sued, saying the clause was unconscionable and the contract, unenforceable.
The trial court sided with Walker-Thomas, but on appeal, the higher court disagreed. They ruled that the cross-collateral clause was unconscionable and unenforceable since it was extremely biased and shocking. The provision allowed Walker-Thomas to take items that Williams had fully paid for, which was unjust.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. is significant because it set a standard for how unconscionability works in contract law. It helps ensure contracts are enforced only when terms are fair and balanced, preventing exploitation and encouraging equity in contractual relationships.
The case involves a dispute between a furniture store and two appellants who defaulted on their monthly payments for household items purchased through printed form contracts. The contracts contained a provision that allowed the store to repossess all items previously purchased by the same purchaser if they defaulted on payments. The lower courts granted judgment for the store, rejecting the appellants' argument that the contracts were unconscionable. In a separate case, the court found an appellee's conduct to be irresponsible and suggested that Congress should consider corrective legislation to protect the public from exploitive contracts. The court held that unconscionable contracts should not be enforced and may adopt a similar rule.
The dissenting opinion in the Williams case recommended corrective legislation to protect the public from exploitative contracts, but the judge believed that the appellant was aware of the contract terms and that public policy considerations were at play. The "Loan Shark" law may provide a remedy if necessary. The lower court did not find evidence of sharp practice. Parties are allowed to create their own contracts, so caution must be exercised when addressing installment credit transaction issues. The impact of the decision on numerous transactions in the jurisdiction is unclear. The author agrees with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals' handling of the matter. The lower court erred in not finding evidence of sharp practice.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.