Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.86
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.050 (2026)

Transactions and agreements not to use or deal in commodities or services of competitor declared unlawful when lessens competition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be unlawful for any person to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, or services, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, enjoyment, or resale, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodity or services of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for such sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
[ 1961 c 216 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1970–1997 · leading case: Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tanner Elec. Coop. v. Puget Sound Power & Light, 911 P.2d 1301 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “040 (monopolies), RCW 19.86.050 (tying arrangements), RCW 19.”
Washington Osteopathic Med. Ass'n v. King Cnty. Med. Serv. Corp., 478 P.2d 228 (Wash. 1970). “040), and in violation of the act’s prohibition against tying agreements (RCW 19.86.050). In April, 1968, two of the defendants, to wit, the Service Corporation and the Service Bureau moved, with support *579 ing affidavit, to dismiss plaintiffs’ action, which motion was granted…”
Omega Env't, Inc. v. Gilbarco, Inc., 127 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “They also alleged that the defendants had conspired to monopolize, and attempted to monopolize, the market for the sale of petroleum dispensing equipment in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act and Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.040 . In their final antitrust claim, plaintiffs contended…”
Christensen v. Christgard, Inc., 668 P.2d 1301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “2-314, entering an agreement not to use competing goods and services which substantially lessens competition, see RCW 19.86.050, or by violating other statutes or laws which do not entail the degree of intentional culpability found in embezzlement or common law fraud.”
Ceiling & Interior Sys. Supply, Inc. v. USG Interiors, Inc., 878 F. Supp. 1389 (W.D. Wash. 1993). “030, prohibiting conspiracies in restraint of trade and RCW 19.86.050, which makes it unlawful to agree not to use or deal in commodities “where the effect of such .”
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.