At trial, Mrs. Williams testified that she understood the agreements to mean that when payments on the running account were sufficient to balance the amount due on an individual item, the item became hers.  Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 198 A.2d 914, 915 (D.C. Ct. App. 1964).  Walker-Thomas Furniture, on the other hand, claimed that it still retained title to all of the items that she had purchased because she had not yet, and had never, reduced her running balance to $0.  The store's brief filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the store's records reflected the following balances on each item as of December 26, 1962:     

R. Skilton & O. Helstad, Protection of the Installment Buyuer of Goods Under the Uniform Commercial Code, 65 Mich. L. Rev. 1465, 1477 (1967). 

     As you read the quoted contract language, whose interpretation was correct?