Legal case study: William versus Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
Study on a statement of decision concerning the case William versus Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
[...] But it was enacted subsequent to the contracts. This disposition wasn’t applicable but it doesn’t prevent the court from adopting a similar rule in the exercise of its power to develop the Common law. IV- Issue There are two issues in this case: The first one: Did the court have the power to refuse enforcement of Ks that it found to be unconscionable? The second one: Were the terms of the contract in the current case so unfair that enforcement should be withheld? [...]
[...] In our opinion, this judgment is made on the basis of equity, because both the Court recognizes that the seller was a bit of bad faith, and that despite the recognized commercial practices, should not take advantage of the difficult financial situation of a consumer. Indeed, in most cases, these consumers have not received legal training and are not necessarily able to identify the traps that may contain a contract. That is why legislators should be very attentive to the relationship between professionals and consumers, and protect people profanes. To conclude: the solution seems well thought out and built according to the Fair. [...]
[...] However, the District of Columbia can only decide the issue as a matter of law, so District of Columbia decides that the case must be remanded to the Trial Court for further proceedings. III- Legal rule The appellate court and the trial court decide that they didn’t have the power to refuse enforcement to contracts found to be unconscionable. Whereas in other jurisdiction, it has been held that which contract are enforceable. As in the case Scott v. United States, where the Supreme Court can refuse to enforce an unreasonable and unconscionable contract, not according to the letter of the contract but only such as weaker party is equitably entitled to. [...]