| Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. | |
| Court: | United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Full Name: | Ora Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. WALKER-THOMAS FURNITURE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Citations: | 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965) |
| Opinions: | J. Skelly Wright |
| Transcripts: | https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9052480984854382590 |
| Keywords: | Unconscionability |
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965), was a court opinion, written by Judge J. Skelly Wright, that had a definitive discussion of unconscionability as a defense to enforcement of contracts in American contract law. As a staple of first-year law school contract law courses, it has been briefed extensively.[1] [2]
It flows from interpretation of the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-302 (1954) and is relevant for the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208.
The case involved Walker-Thomas Furniture Company (Washington, D.C. at 7th St. & L St. NW) extending credit to Williams for a series of furniture purchases made between 1957 and 1962. Williams had been paying monthly installments for several years, before finally defaulting on a payment after purchasing a stereo. The contract that Williams had signed with Walker-Thomas stipulated that the purchaser cannot own any item until their entire balance has been paid off.[3] When Williams defaulted on the contract in 1962, Walker-Thomas then tried to repossess all the furniture that Williams had purchased since 1957. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court could rule the contract unconscionable and refuse to enforce it, and returned the case to the lower court to decide whether or not the contract was in fact unconscionable.
J. Skelly Wright held that the case needed to be sent back to trial to determine further facts, but in doing so, he held that a contract may be set aside if it was procured by unconscionable means.
This case is often used by legal professors in the United States to question their students' ideology or presumptions.[4] It is also used as a case study in some modern economics classes.[5]