Wash. Rev. Code » Title 64 · Chapter 64.06
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.06.070 (2026)

Buyer's rights or remedies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in RCW 64.06.050, nothing in this chapter shall extinguish or impair any rights or remedies of a buyer of real estate against the seller or against any agent acting for the seller otherwise existing pursuant to common law, statute, or contract; nor shall anything in this chapter create any new right or remedy for a buyer of real property other than the right of recision exercised on the basis and within the time limits provided in this chapter.
[ 2010 c 64 s 7; 1996 c 301 s 6; 1994 c 200 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1999–2017 · leading case: Svendsen v. Stock, 23 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Svendsen v. Stock, 23 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “He contends, additionally, that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to reconcile the aforementioned statute with RCW 64.06.070, which expressly preserves a buyer’s remedies “otherwise existing pursuant to common law, statute, or contract.”
Svendsen v. Stock, 23 P.3d 455 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 4× “He contends, additionally, that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to reconcile the aforementioned statute with RCW 64.06.070, which expressly preserves a buyer's remedies "otherwise existing pursuant to common law, statute, or contract.”
Jackowski v. Borchelt, 278 P.3d 1100 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 3× “The Borchelts depend on RCW 64.06.070 and .050 to support their abrogation argument.”
Jonathan Deegan v. Windermere Real Est./Ctr. Isle, Inc., 197 Wash. App. 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “06 RCW, real estate agents were subject to CPA liability for not disclosing known material defects. RCW 64.06.070 preserves an independent cause of action under the CPA against a seller when fraudulent concealment is not connected to the seller disclosure statute.”
Austin v. Ettl, 286 P.3d 85 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “040(3) (2009) provide rescission as a remedy for the conduct complained of by Austin, former RCW 64.06.070 (1996) provides, “[N]othing in this chapter shall extinguish or impair any rights or remedies of a buyer of real estate against the seller .”
Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶31 The Jackowskis contend that they should be entitled to common law rescission because RCW 64.06.070 provides: Except as provided in RCW 64.”
Alejandre v. Bull, 98 P.3d 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Significantly, RCW 64.06.070 expressly provides that nothing in chapter 64.”
Alejandre v. Bull, 123 Wash. App. 611 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Significantly, RCW 64.06.070 expressly provides that nothing in chapter 64.”
Almanza v. Bowen, 230 P.3d 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “” RCW 64.06.070 (emphasis added). The Alejandre court did not quote the “right of recision” language because it was not relevant in that case.”
Jackowski v. Borchelt, 209 P.3d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 31 The Jackowskis contend that they should be entitled to common law rescission because RCW 64.06.070 provides: Except as provided in RCW 64.”
Almanza v. Bowen, 230 P.3d 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “" RCW 64.06.070 (emphasis added). The Alejandre court did not quote the "right of recision" language because it was not relevant in that case.”
Svendsen v. Stock, 979 P.2d 476 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “” RCW 64.06.070. We hold that, under the facts of this case, the fraudulent concealment verdict is not separable from the Form 17 violation.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.