Wash. Rev. Code » Title 64 · Chapter 64.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.005 (2026)

Liquidated damages—Earnest money deposit—Exclusive remedy—Definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A provision in a written agreement for the purchase and sale of real estate which provides for liquidated damages or the forfeiture of an earnest money deposit to the seller as the seller's sole and exclusive remedy if a party fails, without legal excuse, to complete the purchase, is valid and enforceable, regardless of whether the other party incurs any actual damages. However, the amount of liquidated damages or amount of earnest money to be forfeited under this subsection may not exceed five percent of the purchase price.
(2) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Earnest money deposit" means any deposit, deposits, payment, or payments of a part of the purchase price for the property, made in the form of cash, check, promissory note, or other things of value for the purpose of binding the purchaser to the agreement and identified in the agreement as an earnest money deposit, and does not include other deposits or payments made by the purchaser; and
(b) "Liquidated damages" means an amount agreed by the parties as the amount of damages to be recovered for a breach of the agreement by the other and identified in the agreement as liquidated damages, and does not include other deposits or payments made by the purchaser.
(3) This section does not prohibit, or supersede the common law with respect to, liquidated damages or earnest money forfeiture provisions in excess of five percent of the purchase price. A liquidated damages or earnest money forfeiture provision not meeting the requirements of subsection (1) of this section shall be interpreted and enforced without regard to this statute.
[ 2005 c 186 s 1; 1991 c 210 s 1.]

Notes:

Application—2005 c 186: "This act applies to all contracts executed after April 26, 2005." [ 2005 c 186 s 2.]
Effective date—2005 c 186: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [April 26, 2005]." [ 2005 c 186 s 3.]
Application—1991 c 210: "The provisions of this act apply only to written agreements entered on or after July 28, 1991." [ 1991 c 210 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1994–2018 · leading case: Paradise Orchards Gen. P'ship v. Fearing, 94 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paradise Orchards Gen. P'ship v. Fearing, 94 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “If the earnest money deposit does not exceed five percent of the purchase price, and the earnest money agreement contains the required *519 language, a provision in the agreement providing that forfeiture of the earnest money deposit is the “seller’s sole and exclusive remedy”…”
Wallace Real Est. Inv. Inc. v. Groves, 881 P.2d 1010 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “Wallace maintains, however, that to uphold any liquidated damages provision in excess of 5 percent of the total contract price violates legislative intent, as embodied by RCW 64.04.005. That statute provides that forfeiture of an earnest money deposit is valid, regardless of…”
Paradise Orchards Gen. P'ship v. Fearing, 94 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “If the earnest money deposit does not exceed five percent of the purchase price, and the earnest money agreement contains the required language, a provision in the agreement providing that forfeiture of the earnest money deposit is the "seller's sole and exclusive remedy" in the…”
Watson v. Ingram, 881 P.2d 247 (Wash. 1994). “RCW 64.04.005(1)(a)(i) provides that such agreements are valid and enforceable, regardless of whether the seller incurs any actual damages, so long as the earnest money deposit does not exceed 5 percent of the purchase price.”
Chrisp v. Goll, 126 Wash. App. 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “BACKGROUND ¶2 The earnest money forfeiture statute is found in RCW 64.04.005. It provides that a seller of residential real estate has all common law remedies upon a buyer’s unexcused failure to purchase, unless the contract states otherwise in *20 specified language and…”
Chrisp v. Goll, 104 P.3d 25 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “BACKGROUND The earnest money forfeiture statute is found in RCW 64.04.005. It provides that a seller of residential real estate has all common law remedies upon a buyer's unexcused failure to purchase, unless the contract states otherwise in specified language and typeface, and…”
Tammy Beck v. Darren Grafe & Jane Doe Grafe (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “A statute in effect at the time the parties entered into their contract provided that a seller of residential property retained all rights and remedies upon No. 67641-5-1/3 the buyer's default and was not limited to forfeiture of earnest money unless the contract so specified in…”
T & B Washington, Inc., Dba v. Virginia Dullanty (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “See RCW 64.04.005. In such circumstances, a breach of contract suit would constitute an action for damages for purposes of statutory attorney fees.”
T & B Washington, Inc., dba v. Virginia Dullanty (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “See RCW 64.04.005. In such circumstances, a breach of contract suit would constitute an action for damages for purposes of statutory attorney fees.”
Meyer v. Consumers Choice, Inc., 950 P.2d 540 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 1 Under RCW 64.04.005, forfeiture of the earnest money is the exclusive remedy only if the earnest money does not exceed five percent.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.005(1) — 1 case
Chrisp v. Goll, 126 Wash. App. 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “BACKGROUND ¶2 The earnest money forfeiture statute is found in RCW 64.04.005. It provides that a seller of residential real estate has all common law remedies upon a buyer’s unexcused failure to purchase, unless the contract states otherwise in *20 specified language and…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.005(1)(a) — 1 case
Paradise Orchards Gen. P'ship v. Fearing, 94 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “If the earnest money deposit does not exceed five percent of the purchase price, and the earnest money agreement contains the required language, a provision in the agreement providing that forfeiture of the earnest money deposit is the "seller's sole and exclusive remedy" in the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.005(1)(a)(i) — 1 case
Watson v. Ingram, 881 P.2d 247 (Wash. 1994). “RCW 64.04.005(1)(a)(i) provides that such agreements are valid and enforceable, regardless of whether the seller incurs any actual damages, so long as the earnest money deposit does not exceed 5 percent of the purchase price.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.005(1)(b)(ii) — 1 case
Tammy Beck v. Darren Grafe & Jane Doe Grafe (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “A statute in effect at the time the parties entered into their contract provided that a seller of residential property retained all rights and remedies upon No. 67641-5-1/3 the buyer's default and was not limited to forfeiture of earnest money unless the contract so specified in…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.005(2) — 2 cases
Paradise Orchards Gen. P'ship v. Fearing, 94 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “If the earnest money deposit does not exceed five percent of the purchase price, and the earnest money agreement contains the required *519 language, a provision in the agreement providing that forfeiture of the earnest money deposit is the “seller’s sole and exclusive remedy”…”
Paradise Orchards Gen. P'ship v. Fearing, 94 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “If the earnest money deposit does not exceed five percent of the purchase price, and the earnest money agreement contains the required language, a provision in the agreement providing that forfeiture of the earnest money deposit is the "seller's sole and exclusive remedy" in the…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.005(4) — 1 case
Meyer v. Consumers Choice, Inc., 950 P.2d 540 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “” 1 Under RCW 64.04.005, forfeiture of the earnest money is the exclusive remedy only if the earnest money does not exceed five percent.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.04.005(l)(a) — 1 case
Paradise Orchards Gen. P'ship v. Fearing, 94 P.3d 372 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “If the earnest money deposit does not exceed five percent of the purchase price, and the earnest money agreement contains the required *519 language, a provision in the agreement providing that forfeiture of the earnest money deposit is the “seller’s sole and exclusive remedy”…”
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.