Williams v Walker Thomas: Unconscionable Contracts

The landmark case Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. represents a significant intersection between contract law and consumer protection within the District of Columbia. Unconscionability, as a legal doctrine, found considerable examination through the court’s scrutiny of Walker-Thomas Furniture Company’s business practices. The implications of Williams v Walker Thomas resonate even today, particularly in discussions surrounding predatory lending and the equitable enforcement of contracts. The precedent set by Judge Skelly Wright in Williams v Walker Thomas continues to influence judicial interpretation of fairness in contractual agreements.

The Landmark Walker-Thomas Case: A Foundation of Consumer Protection

The case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. stands as a watershed moment in American consumer protection law.

It brought to the forefront the critical issue of unconscionability in contractual agreements, particularly those targeting vulnerable, low-income consumers.

This legal battle, fought over a seemingly mundane furniture contract, ultimately reshaped how courts assess fairness and equity in the marketplace.

The Essence of the Dispute: A Cross-Collateral Clause

At the heart of the Walker-Thomas case lies the contentious "cross-collateral clause."

This clause, embedded within the furniture company’s standard sales contract, allowed Walker-Thomas to retain a security interest in all items purchased by a customer until every debt was fully paid.

This meant that even after a consumer had diligently paid off the majority of their purchases, a single late payment on a new item could trigger repossession of everything they had previously acquired.

The implications of such a clause for low-income families were, and remain, devastating.

Defining Fairness in Contractual Agreements

The Walker-Thomas case forced a critical re-evaluation of what constitutes fairness in contractual agreements.

It challenged the traditional notion of "freedom of contract" when one party possesses significantly more bargaining power than the other.

The court’s scrutiny of the Walker-Thomas contract ultimately paved the way for a more nuanced understanding of unconscionability.

This case has had far-reaching implications for consumer rights and business ethics. It remains a cornerstone of legal precedent in safeguarding against predatory contractual practices.

Background: Joyce Williams and Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

The case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. stands as a watershed moment in American consumer protection law. It brought to the forefront the critical issue of unconscionability in contractual agreements, particularly those targeting vulnerable, low-income consumers. This section delves into the circumstances surrounding Joyce Williams, the plaintiff, and the business practices of Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

The Plaintiff: Joyce Williams

Joyce Williams was an African-American single mother residing in a low-income neighborhood in Washington, D.C. She was a welfare recipient with limited formal education, making her particularly vulnerable to exploitative business practices. Over several years, Ms. Williams entered into a series of installment sales contracts with Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. for various household items, ranging from furniture to appliances.

Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.: Business Model and Target Demographic

Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. operated a business model that specifically targeted low-income residents in the D.C. area. The company’s marketing strategies focused on offering easy credit and small weekly or monthly payments, thereby attracting customers who might not qualify for credit from traditional lenders.

This strategy, while seemingly beneficial, masked a predatory lending scheme that kept customers perpetually indebted.

The Cross-Collateral Clause: A Trap of Perpetual Indebtedness

The cornerstone of Walker-Thomas’s business practice was the inclusion of a cross-collateral clause in its installment sales contracts.

This clause stipulated that until every item purchased from the store was fully paid off, Walker-Thomas retained a security interest in all items previously purchased, regardless of whether those earlier items had been substantially or entirely paid for.

To illustrate, consider a scenario where Ms. Williams purchased a stereo and subsequently a refrigerator.

Even if she faithfully made payments on the stereo until nearly paid off, a default on the refrigerator payments would allow Walker-Thomas to repossess both the refrigerator and the stereo.

The impact of this clause on consumers was devastating. It created a cycle of perpetual indebtedness, where a customer could lose all their possessions, even after making substantial payments over an extended period.

This highlights the inherently unfair and unconscionable nature of the cross-collateral clause, which disproportionately affected vulnerable consumers like Joyce Williams.

The Cross-Collateral Clause: A Closer Look

The case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. stands as a watershed moment in American consumer protection law. It brought to the forefront the critical issue of unconscionability in contractual agreements, particularly those targeting vulnerable, low-income consumers. This section delves into the specifics of the contractual device that ignited the legal battle: the cross-collateral clause.

Understanding the Add-on Clause

At the heart of the Williams v. Walker-Thomas case lies a contractual provision known as the cross-collateral clause, also frequently referred to as an "add-on" clause. This clause allowed Walker-Thomas to retain a security interest not just in the item being purchased, but in all goods previously bought from the store by the same customer, until every single item was fully paid off.

Essentially, even if a customer diligently paid off most of their purchases, they technically didn’t fully own any of their items until the entire balance, across all transactions, was cleared. This created a situation ripe for exploitation.

An Illustrative Example: The Web of Debt

To fully grasp the implications of this clause, consider a hypothetical scenario:

A customer initially purchases a refrigerator for $500 and subsequently buys a television for $300. According to the cross-collateral clause, Walker-Thomas retains a security interest in both the refrigerator and the television until the combined debt of $800 is completely settled.

If the customer pays off $750, leaving only a $50 balance, Walker-Thomas could, theoretically, repossess both the refrigerator and the television because neither item is considered fully paid for. This is the power of the cross-collateral clause and the source of its inherent unfairness.

The Specter of Repossession: A Disproportionate Penalty

The most troubling aspect of the cross-collateral clause was the threat of repossession. Even a minor outstanding balance could trigger the repossession of all previously purchased items, regardless of how much had already been paid.

This created a disproportionate penalty for consumers, especially those with limited financial resources. The potential loss of essential household goods, such as furniture or appliances, for a small remaining debt, could have devastating consequences.

The clause essentially locked consumers into a perpetual cycle of debt, where even diligent payment efforts could be nullified by the ever-present threat of repossession. This imbalance of power and the potential for such harsh outcomes is a key reason why the court ultimately deemed such clauses to be potentially unconscionable.

Initial Court Proceedings and the District of Columbia Court’s Ruling

The case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. stands as a watershed moment in American consumer protection law. It brought to the forefront the critical issue of unconscionability in contractual agreements, particularly those targeting vulnerable, low-income consumers. This section delves into the specific details of the initial legal skirmishes that shaped the foundation of this landmark case, dissecting the lower court’s decision and the arguments presented by both parties.

The Initial Complaint and Legal Venue

The legal battle began in the District of Columbia Court of General Sessions (now the Superior Court of the District of Columbia). Joyce Williams, the plaintiff, initiated the lawsuit after Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. sought to repossess all the items she had purchased from them over several years.

This action was triggered by her default on a relatively small balance related to a stereo set. The crux of the matter revolved around the furniture company’s aggressive repossession tactics enabled by the cross-collateral clause embedded in their contracts.

Lower Court’s Ruling: A Strict Interpretation of Contract Law

The lower court, at the initial stages of the case, sided with Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. This ruling was primarily based on a strict interpretation of contract law principles prevalent at the time.

The court essentially held that since Joyce Williams had signed the contract, she was bound by its terms, regardless of how unfavorable or one-sided they might appear. The prevailing legal philosophy emphasized the sanctity of contracts and the individual’s responsibility to understand and abide by the agreements they entered into.

Legal Arguments Presented

Walker-Thomas’ Position: The Sanctity of Contract

Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.’s legal argument rested heavily on the principle of freedom of contract. They asserted that Williams had voluntarily entered into the agreement and was therefore obligated to fulfill her financial obligations.

The company emphasized that the terms of the contract, including the cross-collateral clause, were clearly stated and legally binding. Their defense centered on the notion that courts should not interfere with private contracts freely entered into by consenting parties.

Joyce Williams’ Initial Challenge: A Plea for Equity

Joyce Williams’ legal team, on the other hand, argued that the contract was unconscionable and should not be enforced. They contended that the cross-collateral clause was unfairly oppressive, particularly given Williams’ limited education and financial circumstances.

However, the prevailing legal standards at the time made it difficult to challenge a contract based solely on its perceived unfairness. The emphasis was more on the formation of the contract rather than the substantive fairness of its terms.

The Significance of the Initial Ruling

The initial ruling in favor of Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. highlighted the limitations of traditional contract law in addressing issues of fairness and equity, especially in cases involving vulnerable consumers. It exposed a legal landscape where the principle of caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") still held considerable sway, often to the detriment of those with limited bargaining power. This outcome set the stage for the appeal that would ultimately challenge the very foundations of contractual fairness in American jurisprudence.

The Appeal: Setting the Stage for a Landmark Decision

The case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. stands as a watershed moment in American consumer protection law.

It brought to the forefront the critical issue of unconscionability in contractual agreements, particularly those targeting vulnerable, low-income consumers.

This case gained further significance when it reached the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, marking a critical juncture in the pursuit of justice for Joyce Williams.

The Role of the Appellate Court

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit plays a crucial role in the American legal system.

As an appellate court, its function is not to retry cases but to review the decisions of lower courts to determine whether legal errors were made that warrant a reversal or modification of the original judgment.

In Williams v. Walker-Thomas, the appellate court was tasked with examining the District Court’s decision to determine whether it correctly applied the law regarding the enforceability of the contract’s cross-collateral clause.

This review process is fundamental to ensuring that the law is applied uniformly and fairly across the jurisdiction.

The appellate court’s decision to hear the case signaled a willingness to re-examine established legal precedents and consider the broader implications of contractual agreements on vulnerable populations.

Judge Skelly Wright and the Opinion that Shifted Legal Perspectives

The appellate court’s opinion was authored by Judge J. Skelly Wright, a jurist known for his commitment to social justice and his willingness to challenge conventional legal thinking.

Judge Wright’s involvement was instrumental in shaping the court’s perspective on the case.

His thoughtful and incisive analysis of the contract between Joyce Williams and Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. brought to light the inherent inequities embedded within the agreement.

Judge Wright’s opinion not only scrutinized the specific terms of the contract but also examined the broader societal context in which such agreements were made.

This contextual analysis was crucial in understanding the power dynamics at play between the furniture company and its low-income clientele.

A Shift in Legal Perspective

The appeal represented a significant shift in legal perspective, moving beyond a purely formalistic interpretation of contract law to a more substantive examination of fairness and equity.

The appellate court recognized that simply adhering to the letter of the law could, in certain circumstances, lead to unjust outcomes, especially when dealing with contracts of adhesion where one party has significantly more bargaining power than the other.

This shift in perspective was evident in the court’s willingness to consider the concept of "unconscionability."

The court’s focus on unconscionability allowed it to delve into the practical realities of the transaction and assess whether the terms of the contract were so one-sided as to be oppressive and unfair.

This move towards a more nuanced and contextual understanding of contract law had a profound impact on the development of consumer protection law in the United States.

By acknowledging the potential for exploitation in contractual agreements, the appellate court paved the way for greater scrutiny of business practices that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.

Unconscionability: The Heart of the Matter

The case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. stands as a watershed moment in American consumer protection law. It brought to the forefront the critical issue of unconscionability in contractual agreements, particularly those targeting vulnerable, low-income consumers. This case gained further prominence as it successfully challenged the legal system’s traditional deference to the principle of freedom of contract, arguing that agreements, no matter how freely entered, may still be deemed unenforceable if they are found to be unconscionable.

Defining Unconscionability

At the heart of the Walker-Thomas case lies the legal doctrine of unconscionability. Unconscionability, in contract law, refers to terms that are so extremely unjust or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party with superior bargaining power that they are contrary to good conscience.

It essentially serves as a safeguard against exploitation within contractual relationships.

The doctrine aims to prevent situations where one party takes unfair advantage of another’s vulnerability, lack of knowledge, or desperate circumstances.

By scrutinizing the fairness of contract terms and the circumstances surrounding their negotiation, courts can refuse to enforce agreements that shock the conscience.

The Significance of Unconscionability in Contract Law

The principle of unconscionability holds immense significance within contract law. It provides a critical lens through which courts can examine the substantive fairness of agreements, rather than merely focusing on whether the technical requirements of contract formation have been met.

Its primary purpose is to prevent overreaching and ensure that contractual agreements reflect a modicum of fairness and equity between the parties involved.

The doctrine acknowledges that strict adherence to the principle of freedom of contract can, in some instances, lead to unjust outcomes, particularly when there is a significant disparity in bargaining power between the parties.

Two Pillars of Unconscionability: Procedural and Substantive

The concept of unconscionability is generally understood to have two primary components: procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability. Both elements are typically considered by courts when evaluating whether a contract or clause should be deemed unenforceable.

Procedural Unconscionability: Fairness in the Bargaining Process

Procedural unconscionability focuses on the circumstances surrounding the contract negotiation.

It addresses situations where there is unfairness or inequality in the bargaining process itself. This typically involves an assessment of factors such as:

• Unequal Bargaining Power: A significant disparity in bargaining power between the parties, where one party has little or no ability to negotiate the terms of the agreement.
• Lack of Meaningful Choice: One party is presented with a "take-it-or-leave-it" contract and has no real opportunity to negotiate or modify the terms.
• Deception or Coercion: The use of deceptive practices, hidden terms, or undue pressure to induce one party to enter into the contract.
• Lack of Education or Understanding: One party’s lack of education, language skills, or understanding of the contract terms prevents them from making an informed decision.

Substantive Unconscionability: Fairness of the Contract Terms

Substantive unconscionability, on the other hand, focuses on the terms of the contract itself.

It examines whether the terms are so one-sided, oppressive, or unfairly disadvantageous to one party that they shock the conscience of the court.

This may involve an assessment of factors such as:

• Excessive Price: A price that is grossly disproportionate to the value of the goods or services being provided.
• Unreasonable Terms: Terms that are unduly harsh or unfair to one party, such as limitations on liability or waivers of important rights.
• Hidden or Obscure Terms: Terms that are buried in fine print or written in complex legal language, making them difficult for one party to understand.
• Lack of Mutuality: Terms that benefit one party significantly while providing little or no benefit to the other party.

The Contractual Analysis: Adhesion Contracts and UCC Implications

The principle of unconscionability, while central to Williams v. Walker-Thomas, gains practical weight through the lens of contractual analysis. Two crucial aspects are particularly relevant here: the nature of the contract as an adhesion contract and the implications of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), specifically Section 2-302.

The Adhesion Contract: Unequal Footing

The contracts employed by Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. can be characterized as adhesion contracts. These are standardized contracts, often pre-printed, offered on a "take it or leave it" basis, leaving the adhering party with little to no realistic opportunity to negotiate the terms.

Consumers faced with such agreements are often in a position of significantly weaker bargaining power. They must either accept the contract in its entirety or forgo the goods or services offered.

In the context of Walker-Thomas, Joyce Williams, like many other low-income customers, had little choice but to accept the standard contract presented to her. This lack of negotiation power is a key element in establishing procedural unconscionability.

The UCC and Unconscionability: A Statutory Remedy

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a comprehensive set of laws governing commercial transactions in the United States. Article 2 of the UCC pertains to sales, and Section 2-302 directly addresses the issue of unconscionability.

This section empowers courts to scrutinize sales contracts for fairness and to refuse to enforce provisions deemed unconscionable at the time they were made.

UCC 2-302: The Core Provision

UCC 2-302(1) states: "If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made, the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result."

This provision provides courts with significant latitude in dealing with unconscionable contracts. They can choose to invalidate the entire agreement, strike out the offending clause, or modify the clause to achieve a fairer outcome.

The Framework for Evaluation

The UCC provides a framework for evaluating whether a contract or clause is unconscionable. While the UCC itself does not explicitly define "unconscionable," courts have generally interpreted it to encompass both procedural and substantive elements.

The Walker-Thomas case, therefore, represents a practical application of UCC 2-302. The court’s examination of the cross-collateral clause and its impact on Joyce Williams exemplifies how the UCC can be used to protect vulnerable consumers from overreaching contractual terms.

Economic and Social Impact: Repossession and Vulnerable Populations

The principle of unconscionability, while central to Williams v. Walker-Thomas, gains practical weight through the lens of contractual analysis. Two crucial aspects are particularly relevant here: the nature of the contract as an adhesion contract and the implications of the Uniform Commercial Code.
But beyond the legal theory, the real-world consequences of such contracts demand careful consideration, particularly regarding repossession and its disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations.

Repossession: A Cascade of Consequences

Repossession, in the context of contracts like those used by Walker-Thomas, represents far more than the simple loss of a purchased item. It initiates a cascade of adverse effects, especially for low-income individuals and families.

The immediate consequence is the loss of essential household goods. This could include furniture, appliances, or other items necessary for basic living. Losing these items can significantly disrupt a household’s stability and well-being.

Beyond the immediate loss, repossession frequently damages a consumer’s credit rating. A damaged credit rating makes it more difficult to secure loans, rent apartments, or even obtain employment in certain sectors.

This creates a vicious cycle of financial hardship, making it even harder for individuals to improve their economic standing.

Moreover, the threat of repossession itself can create immense stress and anxiety for families struggling to make ends meet. This constant pressure can negatively affect mental and physical health, further exacerbating their difficulties.

Disproportionate Impact on Low-Income Communities

The Walker-Thomas case was rooted in the economic realities of Washington, D.C., in the 1960s, a city grappling with significant poverty and inequality. Contracts exploiting cross-collateral clauses disproportionately affect low-income individuals and communities. These populations often lack the resources and legal knowledge to effectively navigate complex contractual agreements.

They may be more likely to accept unfavorable terms due to limited options or a lack of understanding of the long-term consequences.

Furthermore, predatory lenders often target these communities, exacerbating the problem. The concentration of such practices in specific geographic areas can have a devastating impact on the overall economic health of those communities.

The loss of assets through repossession drains resources from these communities, hindering their ability to build wealth and improve living standards.

This perpetuates a cycle of poverty and inequality, making it difficult for residents to escape their circumstances.

The Role of Legal Aid and Access to Justice

Organizations like the Legal Aid Society play a crucial role in mitigating the harms caused by unconscionable contracts and repossession practices. They provide crucial access to justice for vulnerable populations who cannot afford legal representation.

Legal Aid attorneys can assist consumers in understanding their rights, negotiating with creditors, and challenging unfair contract terms in court.

They can also advocate for policy changes to protect consumers from predatory lending practices.

Access to legal representation can make a significant difference in the outcome of repossession cases.

Attorneys can help consumers explore alternatives to repossession, such as debt restructuring or payment plans. They can also challenge the validity of the contract or the legality of the repossession process.

Moreover, Legal Aid organizations often provide community education programs to empower consumers with the knowledge and skills they need to avoid predatory lending practices and protect their financial well-being.

By promoting financial literacy and providing access to legal assistance, these organizations help level the playing field and ensure that vulnerable populations have a fair chance to thrive.

The Significance of Walker-Thomas: A Lasting Legacy

Economic and Social Impact: Repossession and Vulnerable Populations
The principle of unconscionability, while central to Williams v. Walker-Thomas, gains practical weight through the lens of the lasting implications of the landmark decision. It is a beacon in contract law, a testament to the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fairness. This section delves into the enduring impact, the broader implications, and the continued relevance of Walker-Thomas in today’s legal and economic landscape.

A Watershed Moment in Contract Law and Consumer Protection

The Walker-Thomas decision resonated far beyond the immediate parties involved. It served as a pivotal moment, solidifying the principle of unconscionability as a legitimate defense against oppressive contractual terms.

The case demonstrated the courts’ willingness to scrutinize contracts, particularly those involving vulnerable consumers, and to intervene when contractual terms were deemed manifestly unfair.

It directly influenced the development of consumer protection laws nationwide. This influence prompted legislative action aimed at curbing predatory lending and abusive contract practices.

Implications for Fairness and Equity in Contractual Agreements

At its heart, Walker-Thomas is a case about power imbalances. It underscores the inherent inequities that can exist when sophisticated businesses contract with individuals lacking legal expertise and economic leverage.

The decision reinforces the notion that contractual freedom is not absolute. It must be balanced against principles of fairness and good faith. Courts, therefore, have a responsibility to ensure that contracts do not become instruments of oppression.

The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in contract formation, emphasizing that consumers must have a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms to which they are agreeing.

This includes clear language, full disclosure of relevant information, and the absence of deceptive or coercive tactics.

Continuing Relevance in Protecting Vulnerable Consumers

In an era marked by complex financial products and sophisticated marketing techniques, Walker-Thomas remains strikingly relevant.

The case serves as a potent reminder that legal principles must adapt to address contemporary challenges. These challenges include online lending, data privacy, and other emerging areas of consumer vulnerability.

The principles articulated in Walker-Thomas continue to inform legal analysis and judicial decision-making in cases involving predatory lending, debt collection, and other forms of consumer abuse.

It serves as a critical tool for attorneys and advocates working to protect the rights of vulnerable consumers and to promote fairness and equity in the marketplace.

Walker-Thomas stands as a reminder that the pursuit of justice requires vigilance and a commitment to ensuring that the law serves as a shield for the vulnerable, not a sword for the powerful.

Reviewing the Evidence: Court Documents as Primary Sources

The principle of unconscionability, while central to Williams v. Walker-Thomas, gains practical weight through the lens of the lasting implications of the landmark decision. It is a beacon in contract law, a testament to the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fairness. Yet, to truly understand the case’s profound impact, one must delve into the bedrock of the legal process: the court documents themselves.

These records—pleadings, briefs, and the court’s opinions—offer an unparalleled glimpse into the arguments, the evidence, and the reasoning that shaped the outcome. They provide a level of detail and nuance that secondary sources often cannot replicate.

The Significance of Primary Sources

Court documents serve as indispensable primary sources for anyone seeking a comprehensive grasp of the Walker-Thomas case. They are the unfiltered voices of the legal process, capturing the strategies, the challenges, and the ultimate resolution.

Examining these records allows one to move beyond mere summaries and interpretations. Instead, one can engage directly with the raw materials of the legal battle.

Unveiling Legal Arguments and Judicial Reasoning

The pleadings filed by both sides reveal the core arguments presented to the court. These documents outline the factual basis of the case and the legal principles invoked to support each party’s position.

The briefs, submitted by the attorneys, provide detailed legal analysis and persuasive arguments. They showcase the lawyers’ interpretations of the law and their attempts to convince the court to rule in their favor.

The court’s opinions, particularly the landmark decision by Judge Skelly Wright, are the culmination of this process. These opinions articulate the court’s reasoning, the legal principles applied, and the ultimate holding in the case.

They offer invaluable insights into the court’s understanding of unconscionability and its application in the context of consumer contracts.

Importance for Legal Research

For legal scholars and practitioners, court documents are essential tools for research. They provide a rich source of information for understanding the evolution of contract law. They help to analyze the application of unconscionability, and to assess the impact of judicial decisions on consumer protection.

By examining the specific facts and legal arguments presented in the Walker-Thomas case, researchers can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of contract law. They can understand the challenges of balancing freedom of contract with the need to protect vulnerable parties from exploitation.

Historical Analysis

Beyond the legal realm, court documents offer valuable insights for historians and social scientists.

They shed light on the economic and social conditions that gave rise to the Walker-Thomas case, including the challenges faced by low-income communities in Washington, D.C. in the 1960s.

The documents reveal the power dynamics at play between businesses and consumers. They also reflect broader societal concerns about fairness, equality, and the role of law in addressing social problems.

A Call to Explore

In conclusion, the court documents associated with Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. represent an invaluable resource for legal scholars, historians, and anyone seeking a deeper understanding of this landmark case.

By exploring these primary sources, one can gain a more nuanced and comprehensive appreciation for the legal arguments, the judicial reasoning, and the enduring significance of the case. We encourage interested readers to seek out these resources to further their understanding.

So, there you have it. Williams v. Walker-Thomas may seem like a dry legal case from way back when, but it actually set a pretty important precedent, right? It just goes to show that even everyday contracts can be challenged if they’re shockingly unfair. It makes you think twice about the fine print, doesn’t it?