The Instigator
irivera
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Gal7
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 54172
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

irivera

Pro

1) Appellee Walker Thomas Furniture Company in the District of Columbia rents to own house whole items to clients, including appellant Williams. (511. 1. 1, 511. 3. 3)
2) Appellee seeks to replevy all items that have been owned and paid for by appellant, which she now holds the title to all preceding item except the last item that is under a pro rata agreement. (511. 3. 4, 511. 2. 1)
3) Fully aware that the appellant was a relief client with a minimal income, needed to support her family, appellee still leased the last item knowing that the appellant would not be able to stay on track with the pro rata. (512. 1. 5 - 512. 1. 7)
4) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals believes the appellee's selling standard of practice is questionable and careless, and notes that according to the "Maryland Retail Installment Sales Act," the Court of Appeals could display relief towards the appellant. (512. 2. 2, 512. 2. 4)
5) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals also believes congress should enact the "Maryland Retail Installment Sales Act," or that congress passes legislation to safeguard people from pro rata agreements which are prone to easily deceive the consumer such as Williams. (512. 2. 4, 512. 2. 5)
6) Moreover, in the case Scott v. United States, the contract was deemed unfair by the Supreme Court, and in return awarded the party whom sued damages, but only damages equaling to the fair amount that would be fair to both parties. (512. 3. 4)
7) As of 1965 the Uniform Commercial Code enacted that the court may consider a contract unconscionable and demands it unenforceable. (512. 4. 1)
8) Also, the District of Columbia has the power to enact a contract unconscionable in common law. (512. 4. 2)
9) When the contract was constructed it is evident that at least one party was not making a clear judgment during the making of the contract, the appellee with the unconscionable standard form contract, or the appellant not understanding the terms of the contract. (512. 4. 4 - 512. 5. 1)
10) Since the appellee failed to take into consideration the excessive penalty in the contract, along with the potential comprehension of the appellant, therefore issuing the petitioner a unconscionable contract. (512. 5. 5)
11) There needs to be consideration in bargaining power in this case, because the appellee has all the bargaining power leaving Williams with no negotiation power. (512. 5. 3)
12) When the appellant had no power within the contract, she had no real choice in the matter of "commercially reasonable contracts" obligating her to sign the contract unknowing the terms and agreement burdening her decision making her engage into a contract that is unconscionable.
(512. 5. 7)
13) The court can consider this contract not to be equitably and not enforce the terms due to the business standards the contract was made. (513.1. 2, 513. 2. 4)
14) Due to the contracts unconscionable the Court of Appeals remanded back down into the trail courts for a closer explanation. (514. 3. 2 - 514. 3. 3)
15) If this case seems difficult to make an opinion then the "Loan Shark" law can be used to to determine fairness. (514. 6. 6)
16) 4 -> 11 -> 13 -> 5 -> 6 -> 7 -> 8 then the contract is unconscionable.
17) 3 -> 9 -> 10 then the contract is unconscionable.
18) 7 -> 13 then the contract is unconscionable.
19) 11 -> 12 -> 13 then the contract is unconscionable.
20) If 14 then the contract is unconscionable.
21) If 15 then the contract is unreasonable making it unconscionable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is evident that because due to the intentional manipulation of the contract and its small print, the appellee fails to acknowledge the lack of education and awareness on part of Williams, so regardless of what the contract entails, Williams should be awarded what she equally deserves. Thus the contract is unconscionable. (512.5.5, 512.1.5 " 512.1.7, 512.3.4)
Gal7

Con

1)The appellee Walker-Thomas Furniture Co is the owner of a retail furniture store in the District of Columbia. (511.1.1).
2)Appellant in this case made several purchases within a period of about 5 years, for which repayments should had been made in portions. (511.1.2).
3)The conditions of each purchase were specified on a printed document which provided the cost of each goods purchased as well as the a claim that stated that the items were rented until all goods were paid off; meaning that the goods will remain under the title of Walker-Thomas Furniture until the debt was finalized by the purchaser, and then the title would be transferred to the purchaser. (511.1.3-4).
4) Furthermore, the written document expresses that in the case that the appellant does not comply with the expressed and written agreement of payment, Walker-Thomas Furniture may reacquire such items under the contract. (511.1.5).
5)The contract is very detailed and explains the amount for each repayment period, and emphasizes that new items would be added to the previous due balance until everything was paid off, making this new additions the basis of a security interests. (511.2.1-3).
6)Evidence in this case entails that the appellant had previously made several other purchases and was able to reduce her balance and that it had the appellant herself who decided to raise her balance by obtaining a new stereo set from the appellee Walker-Thomas, although her economic situation appeared to be unstable. (512.2.1).
7)Premise number 12 from the pro section of the debate is not applicable for this case, as the appellant had been purchasing from Walker-Thomas Furniture and had signed contracts on her previous purchases over the course of 5 years, and it is evident that she was well aware of what the contract entailed.
8)The District of Columbia after a review of the retail statute was not able to find any grounds on which to impose that the contract was against public policy. (512.3.3).
9)Whether or not the court believes a law should be passed, it does not make it law until it is actually enacted. (Premise # 5 on Pro)
10) " As of 1965 the Uniform Commercial Code enacted that the court may consider a contract unconscionable and demands it unenforceable"". (Premise #7) But this does not apply to the case at hand since it would make it part of an Ex Post Facto law, as the allege crime it is said to have been committed during the period of 1957 to 1962, 3 years before the Uniform Commercial Code enacted any contracts unconscionable.
11)The 1965 Uniformed Commercial Code that enacted a contract unconscionable was subsequent to the case. (512.5.2)
12)Premise # 11 on Pro is not applicable in this case, since the appellant had the opportunity to simply reject to purchase the items, as these were not needs for the everyday living, if is the case that she had a concern for her financial stability.
13)It is the opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that "the appellant knew precisely where she stood". (513.5.2).
14)If 10, then the contract is not unconscionable.
15)If 11, then the contract is not unconscionable.
16)If 12, then the contract is not unconscionable.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17)Therefore, it is noticeable that the contract is not unconscionable, as evidence has been provided of Williams"s awareness on the contract"s details and stipulations, as well as her control over whether or not to have made a new purchase still owing a portion of a previous balance.
Debate Round No. 1
irivera

Pro

According to premise 2 of the con"s argument the appellant, Williams, entered a contract with the appellee to rent to own house whole items starting in 1957 and lasted until the terms of the contract could be have be met. (511. 1. 2) Clearly upon entering the agreement for the stereo in 1962 the appellant was familiar with signing the contract, but not necessarily understanding the terms on the contract. The awareness of the conditions that the counter argument address on premise 3 evidently describes, "The conditions of each purchase were specified on a printed document which provided the cost of each goods purchased as well as the a claim that stated that the items were rented until all goods were paid off," is correct, but also what is printed on the document that holds concern is that Williams" contract stated, "Significantly, at the time of this and the preceding purchases, appellee was aware of appellant"s financial position." (512. 1. 3) This is alerting, because as stated by The Court of Appeals although that cannot "condemn" the appellee"s business practices, but many questions arise as to those business practices. (512. 2. 1, 512. 2. 2) Furthermore, the need to express the practices of the appellant is essential due to note 1 describing that "her account showed a balance of $164 still owing from prior purchase," and then when Williams purchased the stereo for $514.95 the "total payments amounted to $14,000 visibly buying her house whole items for an amount that is multiple times the amount the items original price. (513. Note 1)
The terminology within the contract as well as found in Premise 4 makes the contract along with the argument vague and unclear due to words like "may or could" allowing room for uncertainly creating an unknown action that can take place. (511. 1. 5) Additionally, the appellant did not take into consideration the "obvious education or lack of it, [having] a reasonable opportunity to understand the term." The appellee chose to hurt the appellant by allowing the transaction to take place fully aware of their client"s position. The dissenting opinion agrees the appellee is at fault, because as pro"s argument applies the Loan Shark law should have been considered making premise 17 true. Appellant"s contract is complex as stated by con"s premise 5, "the contract is very detailed" illustrating the difficulty in understanding the contract. Also, con"s premise 6, 7, 12 got addressed previously in paragraph 1 sentence 5, because pro"s premise 19 explains how premise 12 is correct, because together with premise 11, 12, 13 the contract is unconscionable because of the unevenness of the contract along with the general unawareness or lack of education. Moreover, the bargaining power lies with the appellee; although, a stereo might not be needed to one person it might be a way of income for another. (Ex: if Williams used her stereo to teach dance classes to provide an income for her family) (513. 6. 4)
Premise 8 and 9 will be addressed as follows, the District of Columbia court may have not found any ground, but the Court of Appeal, a higher court, understood this case needed more law and remanded it back to the lower court for trial. Furthermore, the court system has the power to enact a common law we they see fit, or address the Loan Shark Law. Premise 10 and 11 according to con"s argument address that the law was not in effect as of 1965, but I disagree, because the case at hand is "Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965). It might have been the case that the lower court did not have this law but it is unclear. The Uniform Commercial Code give judges the power to not enforce a contract if they deem choose. (512. 4. 1) Premise 13 has already been address prior.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Therefore this contract is unconscionable due to the judgment of the appellee.
Gal7

Con

1)The appellee Walker-Thomas Furniture Co is the owner of a retail furniture store in the District of Columbia. (511.1.1).
2)Appellant in this case made several purchases within a period of about 5 years, for which repayments should had been made in portions. (511.1.2).
3)The conditions of each purchase were specified on a printed document which provided the cost of each goods purchased as well as the a claim that stated that the items were rented until all goods were paid off; meaning that the goods will remain under the title of Walker-Thomas Furniture until the debt was finalized by the purchaser, and then the title would be transferred to the purchaser. (511.1.3-4).
4) Furthermore, the written document expresses that in the case that the appellant does not comply with the expressed and written agreement of payment, Walker-Thomas Furniture may reacquire such items under the contract. (511.1.5).
5)The contract is very detailed and explains the amount for each repayment period, and emphasizes that new items would be added to the previous due balance until everything was paid off, making this new additions the basis of a security interests. (511.2.1-3).
6)Evidence in this case entails that the appellant had previously made several other purchases and was able to reduce her balance and that it had the appellant herself who decided to raise her balance by obtaining a new stereo set from the appellee Walker-Thomas, although her economic situation appeared to be unstable. (512.2.1).
7)Premise number 12 from the pro section of the debate is not applicable for this case, as the appellant had been purchasing from Walker-Thomas Furniture and had signed contracts on her previous purchases over the course of 5 years, and it is evident that she was well aware of what the contract entailed.
8)The District of Columbia after a review of the retail statute was not able to find any grounds on which to impose that the contract was against public policy. (512.3.3).
9)Whether or not the court believes a law should be passed, it does not make it law until it is actually enacted. (Premise # 5 on Pro)
10) " As of 1965 the Uniform Commercial Code enacted that the court may consider a contract unconscionable and demands it unenforceable"". (Premise #7) But this does not apply to the case at hand since it would make it part of an Ex Post Facto law, as the allege crime it is said to have been committed during the period of 1957 to 1962, 3 years before the Uniform Commercial Code enacted any contracts unconscionable.
11)The 1965 Uniformed Commercial Code that enacted a contract unconscionable was subsequent to the case. (512.5.2)
12)Premise # 11 on Pro is not applicable in this case, since the appellant had the opportunity to simply reject to purchase the items, as these were not needs for the everyday living, if is the case that she had a concern for her financial stability.
13)It is the opinion of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that "the appellant knew precisely where she stood". (513.5.2).
14)If 10, then the contract is not unconscionable.
15)If 11, then the contract is not unconscionable.
16)If 12, then the contract is not unconscionable.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17)Therefore, it is noticeable that the contract is not unconscionable, as evidence has been provided of Williams"s awareness on the contract"s details and stipulations, as well as her control over whether or not to have made a new purchase still owing a portion of a previous balance.

According to pro, Williams did not understand the agreement between her and Walker-Thomas Furniture, but what evidence can pro provide for that statement? It is obvious that if someone has been purchasing from a store for several years, the person would have a clear understanding of the contract itself. In this case appellant started making purchases from 1957 to 1962, this period should had been sufficient to have more than a better understanding of the agreement regardless of the educational level of Williams. Moreover, Walker-Thomas Furniture is not at fault nor has any say in the financial matters of Williams, in the past she had been able to pay accordingly her debt with Walker-Thomas Furniture and presumably she had the same financial situation as she had when she decided to buy the stereo set. So how is it that if she was in such critical financial status was able to make purchases before?
It is not Walker-Thomas Furniture"s place to reject a fair business transaction, when in the past Williams has been responsible in making her payments; in the case that someone may be at blame, then eyes should turn into the case worker for not paying attention to Williams and her actions. According to pro, Walker-Thomas Furniture "did not take into consideration Williams"s education", but asking anyone if they have any school background before making a purchase would be discriminatory towards that person.
According to pro, the contract is complex and vague, but this is incorrect as there is no evidence and it is not where mentioned any level of complexity nor can we say that it is vague as we do not have read the entire contract and we just have read merely portions of it. The terminology within the contract is as any other contract would be, and to add more it is merely a general contract and was not designed to hurt the appellant as stated by pro. The appellant had the choice to not make any of the purchases and simply go to another store.
According to pro, the court of appeals understood the case; then how come they did not ruled for Williams but instead sent it back to the lower courts?
Debate Round No. 2
irivera

Pro

In this argument I will address each topic as is raised.

Con: According to pro, Williams did not understand the agreement between her and Walker-Thomas Furniture, but what evidence can pro provide for that statement? It is obvious that if someone has been purchasing from a store for several years, the person would have a clear understanding of the contract itself.

Pro: The evidence in Williams not understanding the contract is within The Court of Appeals remanding the case back to the lower court, they sought the contract unenforceable and needed more law. There are many cases where contracts are agreed upon but never fully read. When the iTunes agreement comes up many people never even glance at the digital contract, but agrees to the terms. This is also apparent with the Android marketplace, so there is no wonder that Williams saw the contract, signed the contract, and still could not know what she was reading. The amount of fine print that goes into contracts for the so call "interest security," truly is another way for a one for one party to reap the benefits over the another. Furthermore, proving that the appellee had all the bargaining power to take advantage of the appellant whose financial standings was absolutely clear to the appellee.

Con: In this case appellant started making purchases from 1957 to 1962, this period should had been sufficient to have more than a better understanding of the agreement regardless of the educational level of Williams.

Pro: This I find irrelevant, because no matter how long one may sign a contract it does not mean they understand what they are signing. To have a better understanding of a document that one had no full idea as to what it entail still leaves one with the fact they don"t know what was meant to include the fine print and the contract jargon that Williams cannot be familiar with.

Con: Moreover, Walker-Thomas Furniture is not at fault nor has any say in the financial matters of Williams, in the past she had been able to pay accordingly her debt with Walker-Thomas Furniture and presumably she had the same financial situation as she had when she decided to buy the stereo set. So how is it that if she was in such critical financial status was able to make purchases before?

Pro: There is no evidence to her financial situation before the stereo to apply that appellee was right in manipulating Williams into signing this one sided contract. Again as stated previously, what if Williams used the stereo to teach dance classes to make a little more income so that she can help support her family. But, no what is evident here is that the appellee had all the facts on the financial situation on Williams, and as an "honest business" should take into consideration that this transaction might be a liability and not give Williams the stereo. In this case Walker-Thomas Furniture was fully aware of Williams situation and decided to utilize their greed and let Williams take the stereo to default so that they can come and take all the previous items, which she has already paid for with the exception of $167.

Con: It is not Walker-Thomas Furniture"s place to reject a fair business transaction, when in the past Williams has been responsible in making her payments; in the case that someone may be at blame, then eyes should turn into the case worker for not paying attention to Williams and her actions.

Pro: It is in Walker-Thomas Furniture place to see that there might be issue with repayment, which we can see there was, and not allow this transaction. Moreover, The social worker cannot be put to blame, because the contract in this case is with two parties, Williams and Walker-Thomas Furniture. Social Workers have many files with different relief clients and this transaction was done with the appellant.

Con: According to pro, Walker-Thomas Furniture "did not take into consideration Williams"s education", but asking anyone if they have any school background before making a purchase would be discriminatory towards that person.

Pro: Although, it might be discriminatory to ask about schooling background it is not discriminatory to sit down with Williams and explain in as, detailed as the contract is, the term that she is signing and educate Williams on what she is signing. This practice should be done on all transaction so that it wouldn"t lead to unconscionable contracts.

Con: According to pro, the contract is complex and vague, but this is incorrect as there is no evidence and it is not where mentioned any level of complexity nor can we say that it is vague as we do not have read the entire contract and we just have read merely portions of it. The terminology within the contract is as any other contract would be, and to add more it is merely a general contract and was not designed to hurt the appellant as stated by pro. The appellant had the choice to not make any of the purchases and simply go to another store.

Pro: Any and all contract are complex and detail as Con has stated previously, the evidence is within the contract itself. Each contract must be read entirely, as con is stating that we should read the contract so should the appellee to the appellant for a full understanding of what might be gain or lost. Even general contract can be difficult to the smartest individual. Take for example when buying a MetroCard to enter New York City subways, the purchaser is agreeing to pay for a ride home, because they would like the convenience of not walking all the way home. They got choices to walk, buy a car, or pay more for a cab, but instead they utilize the subway. When passing the turn stop that agreement entitles the subway corporation to check your bags and person, and also detain oneself when they deem fit. All subway riders agree to this by buying the MetroCard, but are not fully aware of the agreement. Furthermore, subway riders have rights and if detained or searched incorrectly the court system can award the rider with compensation. As well in this case with the Court of Appeals sending it back down to the lower courts.

Con: According to pro, the court of appeals understood the case; then how come they did not ruled for Williams but instead sent it back to the lower courts?

Pro: In the opinion of The Court of Appeals, "the record is not sufficient for [their] deciding the issue as a matter of law, the [case] must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. So Ordered." (513. 3. 2) The court see that there will be more cases like Williams v. Walker-Thomas furniture and wants the lower courts to gather more law so that when other cases arise their fair judgment can be made to benefit all.
Gal7

Con

According to pro, "the evidence in Williams not understanding the contract is within the Court of Appeals remanding the case back to the lower court, they sought the contract unenforceable and needed more law". But if this the case the Court of Appeals would have applied what according to pro was correct and rule for Williams, at the end of the day the Cou9rt of Appeals" job is to make corrections within the law; but in this case they only sent it back to be reanalyzed, it does not specifies that the lower court should change their ruling, if that was the case then the Court of Appeals would have done it themselves.
According to pro, "there are many cases where contracts are agreed upon but never fully read". It is not Walker-Thomas Furniture responsibility, it was the appellant Williams responsibility to make sure she read the contract and was sure of the purchase she was making; pro said himself "each contract must be read entirely""
According to pro, "the appellee had all the bargaining power to take advantage of the appellant whose financial standing was absolutely clear to the appellee". This is incorrect because the appellant Williams had the power to simply not purchase any items from the appellee Walker-Thomas Furniture, it does not seem like her financial standings got in the way before when she made the first purchases for which she almost paid in full. So how is it that on her previous purchases she was able to pay but she allegedly had financial problems?
According to pro, "there is no evidence of Williams" financial situation before the stereo", but if Williams was not able to afford the stereo set on her $218 government stipend why would she buy it anyways? Walker-Thomas Furniture is merely a retail store not a financial advisor.
According to pro, is it Walker-Thomas Furniture place to see that there might be issue with repayment"" I doubt that Walker-Thomas Furniture can foresee the future, it appears that Walker-Thomas Furniture based the new purchase on the fact that the appellant was able to pay before, therefore there is not expressed intention to defraud the appellant which entails that the contract is not unconscionable.
Another piece of this case that pro did not take into consideration is the fact that for the contract to be unconscionable there must have been a law that stated that it was unconscionable, and at the time of the contract there was not any law stating the above mentioned.
Debate Round No. 3
irivera

Pro

As each con argument articulated why this contract is not unconscionable, a closer examination will exemplify all the reason why this case gets remanded and why Williams deserves justice.

Con: According to pro, "the evidence in Williams not understanding the contract is within the Court of Appeals remanding the case back to the lower court, they sought the contract unenforceable and needed more law". But if this the case the Court of Appeals would have applied what according to pro was correct and rule for Williams, at the end of the day the Cou9rt of Appeals" job is to make corrections within the law; but in this case they only sent it back to be reanalyzed, it does not specifies that the lower court should change their ruling, if that was the case then the Court of Appeals would have done it themselves.

Pro: The Court of Appeals understood that there was something wrong in the case that they could not make a decision on it without the lower courts applying more law within the case. If the Appeals court deemed the appellee was right, they would have agreed to the prior opinions and then appellant would have to seek another way to appeal or take it as a lost. If the Court of Appeals believed Williams to be absolutely correct then they had the authority to not enforce the contract and give Williams, her ruling. But instead the Court of Appeals understood there was not something right with the decisions of the lower courts and found that more law needed to be done in order to make a decision on this case. Moreover, due to the lack of law in the case the Court of Appeals chose not to go with Premise 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, but rather send it back to establish a ground for unconscionable contract such as this one in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture.

Con: According to pro, "there are many cases where contracts are agreed upon but never fully read". It is not Walker-Thomas Furniture responsibility, it was the appellant Williams responsibility to make sure she read the contract and was sure of the purchase she was making; pro said himself "each contract must be read entirely""

Pro: It is the responsibility of both parties to understand the terms and agreement and for in the origins of a contract for both parties to come to a fair agreement that both parties are happy with their agreement. Understandably, the correction that needs to be address in understanding "read entirely" is that one may read words, but do they necessarily understand what they are reading. One can sound out a word in a foreign language or repeat a word in a foreign language, but does that mean they understand it? No, it is done on a daily bases just like contracts and many people agree without understanding the repercussion. If the appellant had good business habits or was an honest dealing company, they would have took into consideration and turn away from this contract.

Con: According to pro, "the appellee had all the bargaining power to take advantage of the appellant whose financial standing was absolutely clear to the appellee". This is incorrect because the appellant Williams had the power to simply not purchase any items from the appellee Walker-Thomas Furniture, it does not seem like her financial standings got in the way before when she made the first purchases for which she almost paid in full. So how is it that on her previous purchases she was able to pay but she allegedly had financial problems?

Pro: Con Wisely, but invalidly argues that points of the case that is unknown, it is false to thing something is luxury when in fact it could be a source of income. Take for example the argument made in round two, if the stereo was needed for a source of income like private lessons in dance where they need a source of music. This is clearly stated in the dissenting opinion. (513. 6. 1 " 513. 6. 4) So to acknowledge she has been paying until this point reasonably brings an understanding that this item may have been needed.

Con: According to pro, "there is no evidence of Williams" financial situation before the stereo", but if Williams was not able to afford the stereo set on her $218 government stipend why would she buy it anyways?

Pro: This notion is argued on the previous paragraph. But further what must be stated is what was mentioned in round two with note 1. She has paid to this point over $10,000 previous to the purchase of the stereo with the exception of $167. The court must see that the business practices, that are questionable, are unfair and inequitable to remand it back to the lower courts.

Con: Walker-Thomas Furniture is merely a retail store not a financial adviser. According to pro, is it Walker-Thomas Furniture place to see that there might be issue with repayment"" I doubt that Walker-Thomas Furniture can foresee the future, it appears that Walker-Thomas Furniture based the new purchase on the fact that the appellant was able to pay before, therefore there is not expressed intention to defraud the appellant which entails that the contract is not unconscionable.

Pro: Although, correct the appellee is not a financial company they look into each contract to make sure they will not lose money on the transaction. Although, no one can foresee the future, the wealth of the appellant is minimal and as a good business practice (like when buying a car if your credit is bad more than likely you wont get the car) the appellee should have took into consideration the stipend. Furthermore, by accepting the contract of appellant Williams they could see that she probably wouldn"t be able to afford the item. But due to their general Contracts and fine print, their interest security grants them the opportunity to never lose on any deal, but gain more wealth in the process. Their unfair and unequal business jargon allows them to take advantage of everyone in need. This strong notion must have added to the opinion of the Court of Appeals making them feel that the lower court must reanalyzed the case to have a fair opinion.

Con: Another piece of this case that pro did not take into consideration is the fact that for the contract to be unconscionable there must have been a law that stated that it was unconscionable, and at the time of the contract there was not any law stating the above mentioned.

Pro: The is previously addressed in round 2, but as of William v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1965) there was a law passed by the Uniform Commercial Code of 1965 that allows the judge to rule a contract in unenforceable. Furthermore, The District of Columbia has the power to enact the contract as unenforceable in common law like Maryland Retail Installment Sales Act, or take into consideration the Scott v. United States of unfairness. But it is understood that the Court of Appeals remanded instead of affirm, reverse, the fact of the matter is that during this case the "Loan Shark" Law was in place for the Court of Appeals to go in this direction. The appellant"s contract is unconscionable because it was unfair and the Court of Appeals needed reanalyzing of the case. Likewise, this will clarify the terms of the contract and illuminate the unconscionable contract along with ill business habits of the appellee.
Gal7

Con

According to pro the contract is unconscionable; therefore, pro states that Williams deserves justice, but so does Walker-Thomas Furniture.

Pro said: The Court of Appeals understood that there was something wrong in the case that they could not make a decision on it without the lower courts applying more law within the case. If the Appeals court deemed the appellee was right, they would have agreed to the prior opinions and then appellant would have to seek another way to appeal or take it as a lost.

Con: But if this is correct and the Court of Appeals sent it back to the lower courts to apply more law as pro has stated, then why do we have a Court of Appeals for? Their function is to look at the law and statute that have been applied to a case and make the respective decisions accordingly, leaving on the side any facts on the case. In this case, the court of appeals did not do that and simply sent it back, so it would be erroneous to assume that the reason why the case was remanded to the lower court would be to rule for Williams.

Pro said: It is the responsibility of both parties to understand the terms and agreement and for in the origins of a contract for both parties to come to a fair agreement that both parties are happy with their agreement.

Con: As pro is stating above "it is the responsibility of both" so it would be unfair to blame Williams lack of understanding on Walker-Thomas Furniture, we are unaware if Williams ever asked any questions about the contract itself. Is like when you receive a bill, the sender assumes that you have received the bill since it was sent though the post office, the sender does not call you to ask if you have received the bill or not, it is assume that you have. The same with a contract, before you sign it, it is assume that you have read it and if you have any questions then you must ask.

Pro said: Con wisely, but invalidly argues that points of the case that is unknown, it is false to thing something is luxury when in fact it could be a source of income"

Con: What evidence can pro provide that indeed the stereo set was source of income? It is not mention anywhere that the stereo set was for the purpose of working, specially that it was stated that her source of income was a $218 monthly government stipend.

Pro said: Although, correct the appellee is not a financial company they look into each contract to make sure they will not lose money on the transaction. Although, no one can foresee the future, the wealth of the appellant is minimal and as a good business practice (like when buying a car if your credit is bad more than likely you won"t get the car) the appellee should have took into consideration the stipend. Furthermore, by accepting the contract of appellant Williams they could see that she probably wouldn't be able to afford the item

Con: Pro says that the wealth of the appellant is minimal, but in a previous paragraph pro states the following: "She has paid to this point over $10,000 previous to the purchase of the stereo with the exception of $167", for someone that supposedly is in a bad financial status she sure has been able to afford many goods that other that may have a job or a higher stipend than her cannot even start to dream of specially for the time.

Pro says: previously addressed in round 2, as of William v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1965) there was a law passed by the Uniform Commercial Code of 1965 that allows the judge to rule a contract in unenforceable. Furthermore, The District of Columbia has the power to enact the contract as unenforceable in common law like Maryland Retail Installment Sales Act, or take into consideration the Scott v. United States of unfairness.

Con: Yes, the district of Columbia had the power to enact a contract as unenforceable, but in this case it is an Ex Post Facto law, meaning that the law came after the fact and cannot be applied to the allege crime. Therefore the contract is no unconscionable because at the time it was written it was not against the law.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.