| Court: | US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia |
| Facts: | Williams bought items over the years from Walker-Thomas. These were subject to a clause that uses all previously purchased items not yet paid off as collateral to secure the new purchase: so when you miss one payment, it can all get repossessed. |
| Posture: | Finding for the defendant at trial, affirmed at appeal: the courts did not feel they had the authority to override the contract as unconscionable, because no consumer protection laws addressing the issue had been enacted in DC. |
| Issue: | Are the terms of these contracts unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable? |
| Holding: | Possibly so. Remanded for trial. |
| Rule: | Unconscionable contracts will not be enforced. This includes gross inequality of bargaining power, unreasonably favorable terms, and absence of meaningful choice. |
| Reasoning: | It appears that we had these things here, but that's really for the jury to determine, so let's do that. |
| Dicta: | |