Mrs. Williams signed a total of 14 separate contracts with Walker-Thomas Furniture between 1957 and 1962.  Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 198 A.2d 914 (D.C. Ct. App. 1964).  At trial, she 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.  Id.   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? 

     Mrs. Williams testified that most of the purchases were made at her home, that the contracts were signed in blank, that she did not read the instruments, and that she was not provided with a copy. She admitted, however, that 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 trial court also stated that each contract was approximately six inches in length.  Id.