We gain added insight about the facts of the case from the trial court opinion.  She signed a total of 14 separate contracts with Walker-Thomas Furniture between 1957 and 1962.  Each contract was approximately six inches long.  At least some of the contracts were signed although not completely filled in, she did not read the contract instruments, and she was not provided with a copy. She did not ask anyone to read or explain the contracts to her. Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 198 A.2d 914 (D.C. Ct. App. 1964). 

     The opinion refers to the possibility of "deceptive sales practices."  Mrs. Williams purchased much of the merchandise from her home following the visit of a door-to-door sales representative of the store.  Id.   Door-to-door sales may provide a valuable service to potential customers without access to adequate transportation.  On the other hand, such sales are often accompanied by high pressure sales tactics.  High pressure is not synonymous with "deceptive sales practices", but surely such pressure would be a circumstance relevant to the question or whether or not Mrs. Williams had a meaningful choice.  In 1972, to mitigate the effects of high pressure commonly associated with many door-to-door sales, the Federal Trade Commission enacted a rule requiring door-to-door sellers to give customers three business days after the date of a transaction to cancel a sale.  Cooling Off-Period For Sales Made At Homes Or At Certain Other Locations, 16 C.F.R. 429.   Statutes in some states provide similar or additional consumer protection.  See, e.g. Cal. Civ. Code 1689.5 et. seq.  

     The opinion also refers to a customer's education.  The opinion does not tell us the extent of Mrs. Williams' education and her educational level may not have been introduced in evidence.   

     Even if not highly educated, might a customer of the store nonetheless know the consequences of default?  The lawyer who handled the companion case against the store (representing William and Ruth Thorne) tells us that in the preceding decade the store had "seldom filed less than one hundred writs of replevin per year . . . "   P Dostert, Appellate Restatement of Unconscionability: Civil Legal Aid at Work, 54 ABA Journal 1183, 1184 (1968).  Thus, a law student commentary has suggested that perhaps Mrs. Williams or at least other similarly situated purchasers generally may have understood the drastic consequence of default because of the store's reputation in the community.  Comment, What Did the Doctrine of Unconscionability Do to the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company?, 34 Conn. L. Rev. 625, 652 (2002). 

     On the other hand, might even a highly educated customer not have understood the meaning of the contract clause in question?  Did you understand the meaning of the clause when you first read it?