Williams vs. Walker-Thomas Furniture

Williams vs. Walker-Thomas Furniture - Williams was poor...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 404 5/13/2009 rmf34 Ora Lee Williams/William Thorne vs. Walker-Thomas Furniture Judge(s): J. Skelly Wright Court: US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (Location, Date): August 1965 Plaintiff: Case Summary: Walker-Thomas Furniture sells furniture and if people default on their purchase, the item is repossessed. Both Williams and Thorne defaulted and their items were reposed. There is an imbalance of power here. This is due to the windfall depending on when in the item’s ownership the item is repossessed. If in the beginning, it’s better for the customer. If later on, it’s better for the furniture store.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Williams was poor and the furniture store knew of her financial obligations. She already owed them money and they knew her income and she couldn’t afford to purchase a $514 stereo. Commercial code: The court may refuse to enforce a contract with it finds to be unconscionable (unreasonable, ill thought through) at the time that it was made. Defense: s Verdict: Contract not overturned, but law going to be put into place to make this sort of unreasonably power biased contract unlawful. Law and Economics Notes:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/11/2007 for the course ECON 4040 taught by Professor Hay during the Fall '07 term at Cornell.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online