Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture (1964)

Ms. Williams (plaintiff) is a single mother of 7 (seven) children living on public assistance. Over 5 years, she make 14 purchases at the Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. ("Walker-Thomas") on an installment plan. The fine print stated, "Payments on purchases after the 1st purchase are pro-rated on all outstanding purchases."

A furniture store ("Walker-Thomas") sold furniture on a lease basis. The lease contract included a clause that said that payments would be applied pro rata to the respective balances for each item leased from the store. This way, no singular item could be entirely paid off until all items are. If the lessee defaults in his payments, any item that isn't totally paid could be repossessed.

Walker-Thomas stated that the contract meant that if the buyer defaulted towards the end of paying on the last purchase, then Walker-Thomas could re-possess all purchases.

Near the end, Williams had reduced her balance to $164. Finally, Ms. Williams decided to purchase a $514 stereo even though her only income was $218/month.

After Ms. Williams defaulted on her payments, Walker-Thomas sued for a writ of replevin.

Store sought to repossess items sold. Lower court granted judgment for store. Court of appeals affirmed.

Walker-Thomas won, & seized all the sold furniture & appliances.

Does a party who signs a contract have a duty to read it or have someone read it to the party?

Plaintiff could've read the contract. They knew what they were getting into. Sales tactics were used that took advantage of the Plaintiffs.

Yes. A party (Ms. Williams) who signs a contract has a duty to read it or have someone read it to the party (Ms. Williams).