Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.27.350 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The consumers of this state have a right to be protected from unfair or deceptive acts or practices when they enter into contracts with contractors. The fact that a contractor is found to have committed a misdemeanor or infraction under this chapter shall be deemed to affect the public interest and shall constitute a violation of chapter 19.86 RCW. The surety bond shall not be liable for monetary penalties or violations of chapter 19.86 RCW.
[ 1986 c 197 s 11.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Casper v. Esteb Enter., Inc., 82 P.3d 1223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Casper v. Esteb Enter., Inc., 82 P.3d 1223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “114 (1997) establishes the first three elements of their CPA claim under RCW 18.27.350, we hold the trial court did not err when it denied the Caspers’ motion for judgment as a matter of law.”
Anderson v. Valley Quality Homes, Inc., 928 P.2d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “” And, finally, compare it with the statute cited by the Superior Court as one clearly designating it to affect the public interest and constituting a violation of the CPA: • RCW 18.27.350: "The consumers of this state have a right to be protected from unfair or deceptive acts…”
Bosnar v. Rawe, 167 Wash. App. 509 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “185 (frivolous action), RCW 18.27.350 (Consumer Protection Act), and RCW 19.”
Casper v. Esteb Enter., Inc., 82 P.3d 1223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “114 establishes the first three elements of their CPA claim under RCW 18.27.350, we hold the trial court did not err when it denied the Caspers' motion for judgment as a matter of law.”
Rawe v. Bosnar, 273 P.3d 488 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “185 (frivolous action), RCW 18.27.350 (Consumer Protection Act), and RCW 19.”
A.W.R. Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 152 Wash. App. 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “114(5); RCW 18.27.350. ¶12 Remedial statutes in the CRA should be liberally construed.”
Awr Const. v. Washington Dept. of Labor, 217 P.3d 349 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Any contractor who fails to provide the required disclosure statement may not bring or maintain a lien claim under chapter 60.04 RCW. See former RCW 18.27.”
Joann Caskey v. Old Repub. Sur. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Instead, in July 2020, she filed suit against Old Republic raising several causes of action, including violations of the CPA and the IFCA.”
Russell & Diane Taylor v. Matthew S. Calene (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Calene disagreed that his bond was not in place. The trial court did not resolve the dispute.”
Thomas Dutcher & Diane Dutcher v. Wynden Holman & Jamie Holman (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “15 RCW 18.27.350 ("The fact that a contractor is found to have committed a misdemeanor or infraction under [the contractor registration act] shall be deemed to affect the public interest and shall constitute a violation of chapter 19.”
Mandon Foley, V Jim Bays Homes, Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “RCW 18.27.350, which specifically addresses the Consumer Protection Act, ch.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.