Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.52.120 (2026)
Sales contract providing for deferred payment of purchase price not subject to chapter
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A sales contract for goods or services providing for the deferred payment of the purchase price shall not be subject to this chapter, regardless of who seeks to enforce the contract, notwithstanding the existence or occurrence of any one or more of the following events:
(1) That the seller may have arranged to sell, pledge, indorse, negotiate, assign, or transfer the obligations thereof to any person, including a financing organization, prior to or subsequent to or concurrently with the making of the sales transaction;
(2) That the amount of the finance charge, however denominated, is determined by reference to charts, computations or information supplied by such person;
(3) That the form or forms of instruments used to evidence the sales transaction have been supplied or prepared by such person;
(4) That the credit standing of the purchaser is or may have been evaluated by such person;
(5) That the sales transaction and the execution of any instrument evidencing the same is negotiated in the presence or with the assistance of a representative of such person;
(6) That the instrument or instruments used to evidence the sales transaction are pledged, indorsed, negotiated, assigned, or transferred by the seller to such person;
(7) That there is an underlying agreement between the seller and such person concerning the pledging, indorsing, negotiation, assigning, or transferring of sales contracts; or
(8) That the financing organization or its affiliates also provide franchising, financing, or other services to the seller-assignor.
[ 1981 c 77 s 7.]
Notes:
Application, saving—1981 c 77: See RCW 63.14.903.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1982–2005 · leading case: Bell v. Muller, 118 P.3d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Bell v. Muller, 118 P.3d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 19.52.120. ¶10 The Bells contend their agreement did not constitute a retail installment transaction because Central *184 Valley never actually financed the sale.”
Topline Equip., Inc. v. Stan Witty Land, Inc., 639 P.2d 825 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “In 1981 the legislature enacted RCW 19.52.120 which specifically prohibits the application of the provisions of RCW 19.”
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.