Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
198 A.2d 914 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1964
Facts
A mother of seven on public assistance purchased numerous household items from appellee on an installment plan. The contracts prorated payments across all outstanding purchases, effectively retaining title to all goods until the final item was fully paid. When appellant defaulted, appellee sought replevin, and the trial court ruled in its favor despite appellant's claims of misunderstanding and unconscionability.
Procedural history
Appellee filed a complaint in replevin against appellant for possession of purchased items, alleging default. The trial court heard testimony and examined the contracts, subsequently entering judgment for the appellee. Appellant then appealed this judgment, raising contentions regarding a lack of meeting of the minds and the contracts being against public policy.
Issue
Can installment contracts be invalidated for lack of meeting of the minds when the buyer failed to read them, or be deemed against public policy due to exploitative terms and the seller's knowledge of the buyer's financial vulnerability?
Holding
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for the appellee. It ruled that the buyer's failure to read the contract constituted a unilateral mistake, and existing law provided no basis to declare the contracts against public policy.
Rule
One who signs a contract has a duty to read it and is bound by its terms, even if they cannot read and fail to have someone explain it. Courts generally cannot declare contracts against public policy without specific legislative or judicial precedent, even if the terms appear exploitative.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.