Facts: Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, operated a retail furniture store in an economically disadvantaged DC neighborhood. The store’s standard boilerplate contract provided, in fine print, that when a purchaser bought more than one item, any payment she made would be applied equally to everything she had purchased. In this way, the purchaser would not actually own any item until she had paid for everything in full. As a result, when customers missed a payment, Walker-Thomas would repossess every item they ever bought. 

Ora Williams was a single mother raising seven children on a $218 monthly welfare check. Despite this knowledge, Walker-Thomas sold her fourteen household items totaling $1,800 from 1957 to 1962. Williams dutifully made her monthly payments. In 1962, Williams bought a stereo valued at $514.95. At the time of this purchase, she still owed $164 from her prior purchases. When Williams defaulted on her payment, Walker-Thomas sought to repossess every item she had ever purchased. 

With the help of a legal aid society, Williams and other Walker-Thomas customers sued the company, arguing the contract was void for unconscionability. Lower courts sided with Walker-Thomas, and the customer appealed.

Questions:

1. Is this contract unconscionable?

2. What did the court determine the test of unconscionability to be?

3. What was the ruling of the appeals court in this case?