Connection lost
Server error
WILLIAMS v. WALKER-THOMAS FURNITURE COMPANY Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Consumers challenged a furniture store’s contract clause allowing repossession of all items ever purchased upon default on a single item. The court recognized unconscionability as a defense and remanded for findings.
Legal Significance: Established unconscionability, encompassing procedural (lack of meaningful choice) and substantive (unreasonably favorable terms) elements, as a common law defense to contract enforcement in the District of Columbia.
WILLIAMS v. WALKER-THOMAS FURNITURE COMPANY Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Walker-Thomas Furniture Company sold household items to consumers, including appellants Williams and Thorne, under installment contracts. These contracts contained a printed form clause stating that title remained with Walker-Thomas until the total purchase price was paid. Crucially, the contracts included a complex ‘add-on’ or ‘pro-rata’ clause. This clause stipulated that each installment payment would be credited proportionally across all outstanding debts owed by the purchaser for items bought at different times. The practical effect was that no single item was considered fully paid off until all items purchased over time were paid for. Consequently, if a buyer defaulted on payment for the most recently purchased item, Walker-Thomas could seek to repossess not only that item but all items previously purchased by that buyer under similar contracts, even if the value of payments made exceeded the price of the earlier items. Both Williams and Thorne defaulted on payments for recent purchases, and Walker-Thomas sought to replevy all items each had ever purchased under this arrangement.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a court refuse to enforce a contract or clause if it finds the agreement was unconscionable at the time it was made, even in the absence of specific statutory authority?
Yes, a contract found to be unconscionable at the time of its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a court refuse to enforce a contract or clause if it finds the agreement was unconscionable at the time it was made, even in the absence of specific statutory authority?
Conclusion
This landmark decision incorporated the doctrine of unconscionability into the common law, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad m
Legal Rule
A contract may be unenforceable if it is found to be unconscionable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repr
Legal Analysis
The court recognized its power to develop the common law and addressed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- D.C. common law allows courts to refuse enforcement of unconscionable contracts.