Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 63.14.180 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person who enters into a retail installment contract, charge agreement, or lender credit card agreement that does not comply with the provisions of this chapter or who violates any provision of this chapter except as a result of an accidental or bona fide error shall be barred from the recovery of any service charge, official fees, or any delinquency or collection charge under or in connection with the related retail installment contract or purchases under a retail charge agreement or lender credit card agreement; but such person may nevertheless recover from the buyer an amount equal to the cash price of the goods or services and the cost to such person of any insurance included in the transaction: PROVIDED, That if the service charge is in excess of that allowed by RCW 63.14.130, except as the result of an accidental or bona fide error, the buyer shall be entitled to an amount equal to the total of (1) twice the amount of the service charge paid, and (2) the amount of the service charge contracted for and not paid, plus (3) costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The reduction in the cash price by the application of the above sentence shall be applied to diminish pro rata each future installment of principal amount payable under the terms of the contract or agreement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1972–1997 · leading case: Cazzanigi v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 938 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1997).
Cazzanigi v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 938 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1997). “This is a class action brought in January 1993 by retail buyers of consumer goods who financed their purchases through General Electric Credit Corporation (GE Capital) alleging that the financing documents, "private label" credit agreements, violate RISA, RCW 63.”
Nat'l Bank of Com. v. Thomsen, 495 P.2d 332 (Wash. 1972). “RCW 63.14.180. In short, full compliance with the act was an issue necessarily involved in the instant litigation.”
Cazzanigi v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 132 Wash. 2d 433 (Wash. 1997). “This is a class action brought in January 1993 by retail buyers of consumer goods who financed their purchases through General Electric Credit Corporation (GE Capital) alleging that the financing documents, "private label” credit agreements, violate RISA, RCW 63.”
Lookebill v. Mom's Mobile Homes, Inc., 559 P.2d 600 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “Neither do we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that noncompliance resulted from accidental or bona fide error under RCW 63.14.180: Any person who enters into a retail installment contract .”
Atlas Credit of California, Inc. v. Hill, 547 P.2d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “As of the date of the transaction, RCW 63.14.180 provided as follows: Any seller who enters into any contract or agreement which does not comply with the provisions of this act or who violates any provision of this act except as a result of an accidental or bona fide error shall…”
Zachman v. Whirlpool Acceptance Corp., 841 P.2d 27 (Wash. 1993). “Prior to 1967, RCW 63.14.180 provided that "[a]ny seller who enters into any contract or agreement which does not comply with the provisions of this chapter or who violates any provision of this chapter except as a result of an accidental or bona fide error" shall be barred from…”
Kenworthy v. Bolin, 564 P.2d 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “However, statutory compliance requires that they be attached to the sale agreement, thus constituting a "single document"; therefore, the Kenworthys are entitled to remedies under RCW 63.14.180. The statutory remedy for violation of the retail installment sales act allows the…”
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.