Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.04A

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.060

Validity of agreement to arbitrate

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of contract.
(2) The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.
(3) An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.
(4) If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders.
[ 2005 c 433 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Townsend v. Quadrant Corp.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009) washctapp · cites it 16× “On December 22, 2008, a commissioner granted Quadrant's motion to stay proceedings, finding that the trial court lacked authority under RAP 7.2 to engage in further discovery or pretrial motion *824 practice in the suits subject to this appeal.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009) washctapp · cites it 13× “Validity of Agreement to Arbitrate — RCW 7.04A.060 ¶10 Quadrant 6 contends that the trial court acted ultra vires when it decided that the PSA was unenforceable.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2012) wash · cites it 5× “3d 818 (quoting RCW 7.04A.060). The Court of Appeals also cited a comment to the UAA, which explains that the above-cited subsections are intended to "incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the FAA [Federal Arbitration…”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2012) wash · cites it 4× “at 879 (quoting RCW 7.04A.060). The Court of Appeals also cited a comment to the UAA, which explains that the above-cited subsections are intended to “incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the FAA [Federal Arbitration…”
Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (2010) wash · cites it 4× “” RCW 7.04A.060, .080, .210. Nowhere in either act does the legislature refer to an arbitration as an “action.”
Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc. (2010) wash · cites it 3× “" RCW 7.04A.060,.080, .210. Nowhere in either act does the legislature refer to an arbitration as an "action.”
River House Development, Inc. v. Integrus Architecture (2012) washctapp · cites it 2× “” ¶29 A second provision, RCW 7.04A.060, provides at its subsections (2) and (3) that “[t]he court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate” and “[a]n arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to…”
Saleemi v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. (2013) wash · cites it 2× “” RCW 7.04A.060(1). This is substantially similar to the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) command that an agreement to arbitrate is “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Seattle, Inc. v. Yates, Wood & MacDonald, Inc. (2016) washctapp “3d 818 (2009) (citing RCW 7.04A.060(2), (3)), aff’d on other grounds, 173 Wn.”
Rimov v. Schultz (2011) washctapp · cites it 3× “¶ 8 Rimov argues the parties agreed to a nonbinding process, not to an arbitration, and that Godfrey does not prohibit such an agreement as a matter of law.”
Woodall v. AVALON CARE CENTER-FEDERAL WAY (2010) washctapp “[4] RCW 7.04A.060(2); Satomi Owners Ass'n v. Satomi, LLC, 167 Wash.”
Scott Woodward v. Emeritus Corporation (2016) washctapp “RCW 7.04A.060(1) (“An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of…”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.060(1) — 19 cases
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009) washctapp “On December 22, 2008, a commissioner granted Quadrant's motion to stay proceedings, finding that the trial court lacked authority under RAP 7.2 to engage in further discovery or pretrial motion *824 practice in the suits subject to this appeal.”
Saleemi v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. (2013) wash “” RCW 7.04A.060(1). This is substantially similar to the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) command that an agreement to arbitrate is “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009) washctapp “Validity of Agreement to Arbitrate — RCW 7.04A.060 ¶10 Quadrant 6 contends that the trial court acted ultra vires when it decided that the PSA was unenforceable.”
Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (2010) wash “” RCW 7.04A.060, .080, .210. Nowhere in either act does the legislature refer to an arbitration as an “action.”
Scott Woodward v. Emeritus Corporation (2016) washctapp “RCW 7.04A.060(1) (“An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.060(2) — 35 cases
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009) washctapp “On December 22, 2008, a commissioner granted Quadrant's motion to stay proceedings, finding that the trial court lacked authority under RAP 7.2 to engage in further discovery or pretrial motion *824 practice in the suits subject to this appeal.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009) washctapp “Validity of Agreement to Arbitrate — RCW 7.04A.060 ¶10 Quadrant 6 contends that the trial court acted ultra vires when it decided that the PSA was unenforceable.”
River House Development, Inc. v. Integrus Architecture (2012) washctapp “” ¶29 A second provision, RCW 7.04A.060, provides at its subsections (2) and (3) that “[t]he court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate” and “[a]n arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to…”
Saleemi v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. (2013) wash “” RCW 7.04A.060(1). This is substantially similar to the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) command that an agreement to arbitrate is “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2012) wash “3d 818 (quoting RCW 7.04A.060). The Court of Appeals also cited a comment to the UAA, which explains that the above-cited subsections are intended to "incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the FAA [Federal Arbitration…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.060(3) — 11 cases
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2012) wash “3d 818 (quoting RCW 7.04A.060). The Court of Appeals also cited a comment to the UAA, which explains that the above-cited subsections are intended to "incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the FAA [Federal Arbitration…”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2012) wash “at 879 (quoting RCW 7.04A.060). The Court of Appeals also cited a comment to the UAA, which explains that the above-cited subsections are intended to “incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the FAA [Federal Arbitration…”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009) washctapp “Validity of Agreement to Arbitrate — RCW 7.04A.060 ¶10 Quadrant 6 contends that the trial court acted ultra vires when it decided that the PSA was unenforceable.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. (2009) washctapp “On December 22, 2008, a commissioner granted Quadrant's motion to stay proceedings, finding that the trial court lacked authority under RAP 7.2 to engage in further discovery or pretrial motion *824 practice in the suits subject to this appeal.”
Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (2010) wash “” RCW 7.04A.060, .080, .210. Nowhere in either act does the legislature refer to an arbitration as an “action.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.060(4) — 1 case
Biochron, Inc. v. Blue Roots, LLC (2023) washctapp
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.