ContractsDefenses to enforcement
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Decided August 11, 1965 · Core case
Full citation
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1965).
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.This brief explains the opinion as issued. Later treatment and current-law status are not assessed here.
Ora Lee Williams
installment buyerappellant
Walker-Thomas Furniture Company
furniture storeappellee
Brief
Facts
Walker-Thomas Furniture Company ran a retail furniture store in the District of Columbia. From 1957 to 1962, each appellant bought household items on installments under a printed form contract. Each contract purported to lease the item for a monthly rent payment, with title staying in Walker-Thomas until the payments equaled the item's stated value; on any default Walker-Thomas could repossess the item. Each contract also credited every payment pro rata on all outstanding accounts, so a balance remained due on every item until the balance on all items was paid, and each new purchase became security for the earlier debts. On April 17, 1962, Williams bought a stereo set with a stated value of $514.95. Her account had stood at $164; the District of Columbia Court of Appeals noted that this purchase raised her balance to $678 and that the contract listed her social worker and her $218 monthly government stipend. On May 12, 1962, Thorne bought a Daveno, three tables and two lamps with a stated value of $391.10. Each defaulted, and Walker-Thomas sought to replevy all the items Thorne had bought since his first transaction in 1958 and all the items Williams had bought since December, 1957.
Issue
Did the courts below have the power, as a matter of common law, to refuse to enforce contracts found to be unconscionable?
Holding
The court had the power to refuse enforcement to a contract that was unconscionable at the time it was made. Because the lower courts thought enforcement could not be refused and made no findings on unconscionability, and the record was not sufficient to decide the issue as a matter of law, the cases were remanded to the trial court.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/williams-v-walker-thomas-furniture-co