The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.
Debate Rounds (4)
(2) The terms of the contract regarding the monthly installment payments are effectively obscure (511, 2, 1 and 2)
(3) The obscure payment terms resulted in each purchased item to carry a balance due on every item until the balance due on all items are paid in full or liquidated. (511, 2, 2)
(4) Further, each debt incurred at the time of purchase of each item was secured by the right to repossess all the items previously purchased. (511, 2, 3)
(5) Furthermore, each new item purchased automatically became subject to a security interest arising out of the previous dealings, as described in premise 4 above. (511, 2, 3)
(6) Premise 4 individually and both 4 and 5 collectively go far beyond what is usual and proper.
(7) Thus the contract terms are unconscionable and should result in the ruling in favor of Williams.
The purchase and payment terms of the contract are beyond what is usual and proper, in that the terms are constructed so that every purchase on an installment contract is secured by all items purchased from the vendor by the purchaser. Should the purchaser default on an installment payment the vendor is allowed to repossess all items purchased as result of the terms of purchase and security. Therefore, the contract is unconscionable and the repossession of all items purchased should not be enforced.
2. Williams defaulted on her payments shortly after the purchase. (511.3.4)
3. The terms of the purchase were contained in a printed form contract. (511.1.2)
4. The terms of the contract were accepted by Williams at the time of the purchase.
5. The contracts clearly states that the Walker-Thomas furniture company can repossess an item(s) if the purchaser defaulted in the payment of any monthly installment. (511.1.3)
6. Williams did default, giving the furniture company the right to repossess the items.
7. It's William's, and not the furniture store's, responsibility to know what she can afford based on her living situation.
8. Unconscionability includes the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties. (512.4.1)
9. Meaningful choice is negated by a gross inequality of bargaining power. (512.4.2)
10. The furniture store did not have bargaining power because a stereo was not a necessity in this case
11. Therefore the contract was not unconscionable and the case should be decided in favor of the Walker-Thomas furniture company.
William's knew the term of the contract and she made the choice to enter into the contract. She also knew what she could and could not afford and she made the choice to purchase an item that she could not afford. She defaulted on her payment and the contract clearly states that if she defaulted on any payment the furniture store could repossess the item. Also, the contract was not unconscionable due to the fact that a stereo is not a necessity and thus the furniture store had no bargaining power.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.