William v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

William v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. - damages of equity...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. 350 F.2d 445 (1965) Fact: Operative Facts: William had purchased a few items from Walker through Walker’s program where Walker allowed installment payments for an item. However, if the owner defaults on the payment, then the item gets reposed. Walker had a clause in the contract which stated “all payments now and hereafter made by (purchaser) shall be credited pro rata on all outstanding leases, bills, and accounts due to the company” This clause allows one miss payment, and all the items become repossessed. Issue: Whether the courts need to enforce the contract, and if the contract is unconscionable Rule: A court does not need to enforce a contract if it is unconscionable, and may provide
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: damages of equity instead of damages listed in the contract Rational: The courts stated that, to find whether or not the contract was unconscionable, they must look at all of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. But there is enough evidence for the trial court to look at whether or not there was an unconscionable. Holding: If a contract was made in a very one sided manner and the other party had little to no meaningfulness of choice, and it was a gross inequality of bargaining power, than there may be unconsionbility. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CONTRACTS 111 taught by Professor Dellinger during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online