writea Case Briefing skills on the famous contract law case. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. components of a Brief:

1. Case Title and Date.

2. Facts. IRAC METHOD?? 3. Issue. 4. Rule. 5. Analyses. 6. Conclusion.

unfortunately, I can upload only one photo of the text and I cannot upload a pdf file. I hope that the first picture will help you to find tis text in the web

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit April 9, 1965, Argued ; August 11, 1965, Decided Nos. 18604, 18605 Reporter 350 F.2d 445 *; 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4673 **; 121 U.S. App. D.C. 315; 2 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) 955; 18 A.L.R.3d 1297 Ora Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. WALKER- shall be inclusive of and not in addition to the THOMAS FURNITURE COMPANY, Appellee. amount of each installment [**2] payment to be William THORNE et al., Appellants, v. WALKER- made by [purchaser] under such prior leases, bills or THOMAS FURNITURE COMPANY, Appellee accounts; and all payments now and hereafter made by [purchaser] shall be credited pro rata on all outstanding leases, Judges: [**1] Bazelon, Chief Judge, and Danaher bills and accounts due the Company by [purchaser] at and Wright, Circuit Judges. Danaher, Circuit Judge the time each such payment is made." Emphasis (dissenting). added.) The effect of this rather obscure provision was to keep a balance due on every item purchased Opinion by: WRIGHT until the balance due on all items, whenever purchased, was liquidated. As a result, the debt Opinion incurred at the time of purchase of each item was secured by the right to repossess all the items previously purchased by the same purchaser, and [*447] J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge: each new item purchased automatically became Appellee, Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, subject to a security interest arising out of the operates a retail furniture store in the District of previous dealings. Columbia. During the period from 1957 to 1962 On May 12, 1962, appellant Thorne purchased an each appellant in these cases purchased a number of item described as a Daveno, three tables, and two household items from Walker-Thomas, for which lamps, having total stated value of $391.10. Shortly payment was to be made in installments. The terms thereafter, he defaulted on his monthly payments and of each purchase were contained in a printed form appellee sought to replevy all the items purchased contract which set forth the value of the purchased since the first transaction in 1958. Similarly, on April item and purported to lease the item to appellant for 17, 1962, appellant Williams bought a stereo set of a stipulated monthly rent payment. The contract stated value of $514.95. 1 She too defaulted shortly then provided, in substance, that title would remain thereafter, and appellee sought [**3] to replevy all in Walker-Thomas until the total of all the monthly the items purchased since December, 1957. The payments made equaled the stated value of the item, Court of General Sessions granted judgment for at which time appellants could take title. In the event appellee. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals of a default in the payment of any monthly affirmed, and we granted appellants' motion for leave installment, Walker-Thomas could repossess the to appeal to this court. item. The contract further provided that "the amount of At the time of this purchase her account showed a balance of $164 each periodical installment payment to be made by still owing from her prior purchases. The total of all the purchases made over the years in question came to $1,800. The total payments [purchaser] to the Company under this present lease amounted to $1,400. 350 F.2d 445, *447; 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 4673, **3 Appellants' principal contention, rejected by both the contracts are not enforceable. 2 [**6] While no trial and the appellate courts below, is that these decision of this court so holding has been found, the contracts, or at least some of them, are notion that an unconscionable bargain should not be unconscionable and, hence, not enforceable. In its given full enforcement is by no means novel. In opinion [*448] in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Scott v. United States, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 443, 445, 20 Furniture Company, 198 A.2d 914, 916 (1964), the L. Ed. 438 (1870), the Supreme Court stated: District of Columbia Court of Appeals explained its "* * * If a contract be unreasonable and rejection of this contention as follows: unconscionable, but not void for fraud, a court of law will give to the party who sues for its "Appellant's second argument presents a more breach damages, not according to its letter, but serious question. The record reveals that prior to only such as he is equitably entitled to. * * *" 3 the last purchase appellant had reduced the Since we have never adopted or rejected such a rule, 4 balance [**4] in her account to $164. The last the question here presented is actually one of first purchase, a stereo set, raised the balance due to impression. $678. Significantly, at the time of this and the preceding purchases, appellee was aware of Congress has recently enacted the Uniform appellant's financial position. The reverse side of Commercial Code, which specifically [**7] provides