Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.040 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Unless additional duties are agreed to in writing signed by a seller's agent, the duties of a seller's agent are limited to those set forth in RCW 18.86.030 and the following, which may not be waived except as expressly set forth in (e) of this subsection:
(a) To be loyal to the seller by taking no action that is adverse or detrimental to the seller's interest in a transaction;
(b) To timely disclose to the seller any conflicts of interest;
(c) To advise the seller to seek expert advice on matters relating to the transaction that are beyond the agent's expertise;
(d) To not disclose any confidential information from or about the seller, except under subpoena or court order, even after termination of the agency relationship; and
(e) Unless otherwise agreed to in writing after the seller's agent has complied with RCW 18.86.030(1)(f), to make a good faith and continuous effort to find a buyer for the property; except that a seller's agent is not obligated to seek additional offers to purchase the property while the property is subject to an existing contract for sale.
(2)(a) The showing of properties not owned by the seller to prospective buyers or the listing of competing properties for sale by a seller's agent does not in and of itself breach the duty of loyalty to the seller or create a conflict of interest.
(b) The representation of more than one seller by different brokers affiliated with the same firm in competing transactions involving the same buyer does not in and of itself breach the duty of loyalty to the sellers or create a conflict of interest.
[ 2023 c 318 s 4; 2013 c 58 s 5; 1997 c 217 s 2; 1996 c 179 s 4.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 318: See note following RCW 18.86.010.
Real estate agency pamphlet—1997 c 217 ss 1-6: See note following RCW 18.86.120.
Effective date—1997 c 217 ss 1-6 and 8: See note following RCW 18.86.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case: Boguch v. Landover Corp., 224 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Boguch v. Landover Corp., 224 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “RCW 18.86.040(1). In addition, pursuant to RCW 18.”
Boguch v. Landover Corp., 153 Wash. App. 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “RCW 18.86.040(1). In addition, pursuant to RCW 18.”
Jackowski v. Borchelt, 278 P.3d 1100 (Wash. 2012). “030; duties specifically applicable to the seller’s agent are set forth in RCW 18.86.040. Hawkins Poe and Johnson cite RCW 64.”
Washington Prof'l Real Est., LLC v. Young, 260 P.3d 991 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 18.86.040(1)(e); see RCW 18.86.010(14).”
Jackowski v. Borchelt, 209 P.3d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The *521 Jackowskis allege that Hawkins-Poe and Johnson violated the RCW 18.86.040(1)(c) duty to advise the buyer to seek expert advice on matters relating to the transaction that are beyond the agent's expertise.”
Richard Nau, V Nancy K. Vogel As Tr. For Mark O Vogel (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Next, Nau asserts Lewallen failed to advise him “to seek expert advice on matters relating to the transaction that [were] beyond [her] expertise” contrary to the duties set forth in RCW 18.86.040(1)(c). Specifically, he says Lewallen did not at any point advise him to seek…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.040(1) — 2 cases
Boguch v. Landover Corp., 224 P.3d 795 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 18.86.040(1). In addition, pursuant to RCW 18.”
Boguch v. Landover Corp., 153 Wash. App. 595 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 18.86.040(1). In addition, pursuant to RCW 18.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.040(1)(c) — 2 cases
Jackowski v. Borchelt, 209 P.3d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The *521 Jackowskis allege that Hawkins-Poe and Johnson violated the RCW 18.86.040(1)(c) duty to advise the buyer to seek expert advice on matters relating to the transaction that are beyond the agent's expertise.”
Richard Nau, V Nancy K. Vogel As Tr. For Mark O Vogel (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Next, Nau asserts Lewallen failed to advise him “to seek expert advice on matters relating to the transaction that [were] beyond [her] expertise” contrary to the duties set forth in RCW 18.86.040(1)(c). Specifically, he says Lewallen did not at any point advise him to seek…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.86.040(1)(e) — 1 case
Washington Prof'l Real Est., LLC v. Young, 260 P.3d 991 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 18.86.040(1)(e); see RCW 18.86.010(14).”
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.