The Instigator
Davie
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JhasodraP
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+0
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: 5/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 219 times Debate No: 54264
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Davie

Pro

1. Walker-Thomas Furniture Store sold furniture on a Lease to Own basis in the District of Columbia. (511.1.1)
2. Williams a regular customer for the past 5 years purchased a number of items from Walker-Thomas Furniture store. (511.3.3)
3. The furniture company has full knowledge that Williams, had 7 children, was was also receiving government assistance. (512.1.8)
4. A monthly public assistance stipend was given to Williams in the amount of $218.00 (513.1.7)
5. The furniture store took advantage of Williams conditions with their store policy that indicates that if she defaulted then all items purchased can be repossessed . (511.1.5)
6. Bargaining Power was always in favor to the Furniture Store because Williams always had an open balance to high interest rates and service fees. (511.2.2)
7. Prior to Williams purchasing the stereo she had a balance of $164.00 (512.1.3)
8. Williams purchased a stereo set valued at $514.95 and defaulted on payments and store owner sought to repossess all items bought since 1957, that is 5 years earlier which is grossly unfair and unconscionable. (511.3.4)
9. The furniture store policy were not fair and took advantage of general public who cannot afford items they cannot afford to pay cash. (512.4.1)
10 Due to the fact that the contract was one sided and Williams did not understand that if she defaulted she stands to loose all items purchased from beginning date, the element of Unconscionably is present at the time the contract was made. (512.4.2)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Therefore the contract that was made between Williams and Walker-Thomas Furniture Store was unconscionable and not in good standing. Williams had a balance of $164.00 before purchasing the stereo and all her purchases add up to only $1800.00 The amount to be collected in total by the Furniture company was $14,0000.00 How can one say that this is a fair bargain and that both parties were benefited equally. (153.Notes.1)

Unconscionable contract should not be enforced because these contracts are not created to serve both parties equally. As shown above, only the Furniture store have profited from having this contract. How can taking advantage of those who are on Relief Income, have no credit and are on Public assistance helping those of lesser means. It seems that the Furniture Store portrait that they are helping those of lesser means however, when it comes down to the facts they are actually manipulating the general public and taking advantage on them. For the reason listed above unconscionable contract should not be enforced.
JhasodraP

Con

1. Walker Thomas Furniture Company operates a retail furniture store in the District of Columbia (511.1.1)
2. During the period from 1957 to 1962 Williams purchased a number of household items from Walker Thomas Furniture Co. (511.1.2).
3. Upon purchasing these items, Williams entered a contract.
4. The contract stated that title of the items would remain in Walker-Thomas until the total of all monthly payments made equaled the stated value of the item (511.1.4)
5. The contract then continues to state that in any event of a default in payment of any monthly installment, Walker Thomas has the right to repossess the item (511.1.5)
6. Williams did not complete her payment of her previous purchase therefore Williams was still entitled to repossess the item that were under her contract even if meant taking items purchased five years ago because they still weren't paid off (511.1.1 & 512.2.2)
7. As a result, the debt incurred at the time of purchase of each item was secured by the right to repossess all the items previously purchased by the same purchaser and each new item purchased automatically became subject to a security interest arising out of the previous dealings. (511.2.3)
8.Williams was aware of the contracts and her responsibility to support, feed and clothe seven children and herself on a government stipend of $218.
__________________________________________________________________________________
C. Therefore, the agreement made between Walker-Thomas and Williams was not unconscionable and Williams was aware of the contract she was entering and the conditions they were under (513.5). The court should uphold the contract.

Williams was well aware of her debt and chose to buy a stereo that was not an essential item to her everyday living. Walker Thomas should not be held accountable for Williams's decision to buy a stereo that was well far from her financial resources. Williams did not enter this contract under any duress or coercion. It was on her own will. Williams was well aware of her contract and knew the consequences that follow. She knew she was responsible to feed, clothe and support seven children and herself and only depended on government assistance. Williams had a prior relationship with the company when she bought an item in 1957 , this would have been her second time purchasing with the same agreements. How is that unfair? If she knew in details what the contract consisted of. Williams was customer for five years which can presumably mean she knew what the contract covered and what will happen if she failed to make her monthly installment payment. Walker Thomas Furniture Co. was questioned by his decision of selling the stereo to Williams, whom had knowledge that Williams was solely dependent on a government stipend of $218 but they did question her necessity to buy the stereo?
Although, Walker-Thomas knew her financial income, it was not their job to turn down a client who wanted to purchase a stereo. It's their job to sell. Would you expect a sales person to automatically turn you down if you were willing to buy an item from them?
The contract specifically stated that at any event of default payment Walker- Thomas had the right to repossess the items back. So, how is the company taking advantage of Williams by repossessing the items that she defaulted to pay?
You say the contract was unconscionable. What do you define unconscionable as? Both parties had knowledge of the contract. How was it a one-sided contract? Was it unconscionable because Williams lost everything she didn't pay for? Was unconscionable because Walker-Thomas followed what the contract stated he was entitled to do?
Debate Round No. 1
Davie

Pro

I do understand that Furniture company is there to make a profit, and they are supplying the general public with items they may want and need. The way the Furniture chooses to operate his business is a bit shady and the company's policy is set up to manipulate the customers into thinking that the Store is working to help them acquire said items but in the end the Store is really scamming customers out of whatever little money that they may have and also to repossess the items should they default.
The store made its policy on the fact that the customers do not understand, or that they lack education, monetary means and also knew that Williams was a customer on a low budget. The Store chose to service customer on low budget for a number of reasons:
1. The Store portrait itself as a Vendor that is trying to work with its customers who are having difficult;ties purchasing items for cash.
2. They established their business to target low income clients who will default of items and they can both collect the money and reposes items.
3. Williams total value for items purchased was $1800 however the total amount to be paid was $14,000 how can this practice be fair.
JhasodraP

Con

JhasodraP forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Davie

Pro

Davie forfeited this round.
JhasodraP

Con

JhasodraP forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Davie

Pro

Davie forfeited this round.
JhasodraP

Con

JhasodraP forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.