contractual requirement in Washington

2021In Godoy v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 575 S.W.3d 531, 533-34 , guarantor Gerald Godoy agreed to: waives any and all rights or defenses arising by reason of . . . any statute of limitations, if at any time any action or suit brought by Lender against Guarantor is commenced, there is outstanding indebtedness of Borrower to Lender which is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations.

2021In Godoy v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 575 S.W.3d 531, 533-34 , guarantor Gerald Godoy agreed to: waives any and all rights or defenses arising by reason of . . . any statute of limitations, if at any time any action or suit brought by Lender against Guarantor is commenced, there is outstanding indebtedness of Borrower to Lender which is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations.

2005App. 202 , 969 P.2d 486 (1998), and Southcenter View Condominium Owners’ Ass’n v. Condominium Builders, Inc., 47 Wn.

2005But the availability of an additional remedy in the warranty to compensate Titan for damage to other work does not affect Titan's separate claim under Panorama for breach of the contractual requirement that Purcell's own *834 work will be of good quality and free from defects. ¶ 16 Purcell relies on Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Co., 93 Wash.App. 202 , 969 P.2d 486 (1998), and Southcenter View Condominium Owners' Ass'n v. Condominium Builders, Inc., 47 Wash.App. 767 , 736 P.2d 1075 (1986), to argue that the warranty in Purcell's subcontract limited the remedy for improper workmanship or mater

2005But the availability of an additional remedy in the warranty to compensate Titan for damage to other work does not affect Titan's separate claim under Panorama for breach of the contractual requirement that Purcell's own *834 work will be of good quality and free from defects. ¶ 16 Purcell relies on Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Co., 93 Wash.App. 202 , 969 P.2d 486 (1998), and Southcenter View Condominium Owners' Ass'n v. Condominium Builders, Inc., 47 Wash.App. 767 , 736 P.2d 1075 (1986), to argue that the warranty in Purcell's subcontract limited the remedy for improper workmanship or mater

2005But the availability of an additional remedy in the warranty to compensate Titan for damage to other work does not affect Titan's separate claim under Panorama for breach of the contractual requirement that Purcell's own *834 work will be of good quality and free from defects. ¶ 16 Purcell relies on Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Co., 93 Wash.App. 202 , 969 P.2d 486 (1998), and Southcenter View Condominium Owners' Ass'n v. Condominium Builders, Inc., 47 Wash.App. 767 , 736 P.2d 1075 (1986), to argue that the warranty in Purcell's subcontract limited the remedy for improper workmanship or mater

2005But the availability of an additional remedy in the warranty to compensate Titan for damage to other work does not affect Titan’s separate claim under Panorama for breach of the contractual requirement that Purcell’s own work will be of good quality and free from defects. ¶16 Purcell relies on Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Co., 93 Wn.

2005But the availability of an additional remedy in the warranty to compensate Titan for damage to other work does not affect Titan's separate claim under Panorama for breach of the contractual requirement that Purcell's own *834 work will be of good quality and free from defects. ¶ 16 Purcell relies on Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Co., 93 Wash.App. 202 , 969 P.2d 486 (1998), and Southcenter View Condominium Owners' Ass'n v. Condominium Builders, Inc., 47 Wash.App. 767 , 736 P.2d 1075 (1986), to argue that the warranty in Purcell's subcontract limited the remedy for improper workmanship or mater

2003Id.

2003Id.

2025Bird v. Best Plumbing Group, LLC “explicitly approve[d] the application of RCW 4.22.060 to reasonableness hearings involving covenant judgments.” 175 Wn.2d 756, 767 , 287 P.3d 551 (2012).

2025Bird v. Best Plumbing Group, LLC “explicitly approve[d] the application of RCW 4.22.060 to reasonableness hearings involving covenant judgments.” 175 Wn.2d 756, 767 , 287 P.3d 551 (2012).

2024Kalb-Glibert, 60 Wash. at 669 .

2023Elsewhere, it stated that “[i]f the federal venue statutes establish that suit may be brought in a particular district, a contractual bar cannot render venue in that district ‘wrong.’” Id. at 58 .

2020The State argued that once it proved a contractual violation by a preponderance of the evidence, the judge only needed to review the termination decision for abuse of discretion, citing to this court’s unpublished decision in State v. Knight, No. 75648-6-I, noted at 196 Wn.

2019Nursery Prods., Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards, 115 Wn.2d 217, 222-26 , 797 P.2d 477 (1990) (A party to a commercial transaction seeking to invalidate a contractual clause must establish unfair surprise.). 11 No. 35861-5-III Willard v. Addink B.

2019Nursery Prods., Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards, 115 Wn.2d 217, 222-26 , 797 P.2d 477 (1990) (A party to a commercial transaction seeking to invalidate a contractual clause must establish unfair surprise.). 11 No. 35861-5-III Willard v. Addink B.

2016Mike M Johnson, 150 Wn.2d at 390 .

2014Pike, 118 Wn.2d at 590-94 .

1997Lingle, 486 U.S. at 410 .

1994App. 159, 166 , 842 P.2d 975 (1992) (quoting Siekawitch, at 462), review granted, 122 Wn.2d 1023 (1993). *173 Plaintiff also urges that definiteness is a contractual requirement which is not necessary for promissory estoppel, and that promissory estoppel may be used to enforce promises that are indefinite or silent as to key terms.

1991See Lysnes, 173 Wash, at 232; see also American Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Haynes, 67 Wn.2d 153, 158 , 407 P.2d 429 (1965); Swenson v. Lowe, 5 Wn.

1991Co. v. Barcom, 112 Wn.2d 575 , 773 P.2d 56 (1989) in support of her argument.

1991Co. v. Barcom, 112 Wn.2d 575 , 773 P.2d 56 (1989) in support of her argument.