KEY DESIGN, INC. v. Moser, 66916-3.

Decision Date14 December 1999
Docket NumberNo. 66916-3.,66916-3.
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesKEY DESIGN, INC., Appellant, v. Vince MOSER, et al., Respondents.

ORDER CHANGING OPINION

GUY, C.J.

It is hereby ordered that the opinion in the above cause, as the same appears at 138 Wash.2d 875, 983 P.2d 653, be changed as follows:

1. In the second line from the top of page 877, the word "contract" is deleted and the word "agreement" is inserted in its place.

2. In the third line from the top of page 877, [column 2, line 21, page 655 of 983 P.2d] the following is added after the word "rulings":

With respect to the real estate purchase and sale agreement.

The other agreement between the parties, an agreement for the purchase of personal property, was not specifically considered by the trial court because it was not clearly before that court on summary judgment. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of appellant Key Design's claims with respect to the personal property agreement and remand to superior court for a determination of issues with respect to this agreement.

3. The paragraph beginning with the word "Since" in the thirteenth line from the top of page 889 [column 2, third paragraph of page 661 of 983 P.2d] is deleted, and the following two paragraphs are inserted in its place:

Since we retain the Martin rule, decline to recognize a judicial admissions exception to it, and hold the evidence does not support reformation due to mutual mistake, the absence of a legal description of the property in the real estate purchase and sale agreement makes that agreement unenforceable. We affirm the trial court's rulings with respect to this agreement.
We reverse the trial court's ruling with respect to the purchase agreement for the gym's equipment and remand for a determination of issues arising out of this agreement.

SMITH, JOHNSON, MADSEN, ALEXANDER, TALMADGE, SANDERS, and IRELAND, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Grisby v. Herzog, 71904–1–I.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 26 Octubre 2015
    ...show that the prior decision is both incorrect and harmful. See, e.g., Key Design Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wash.2d 875, 882, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999) ("We will not overturn an established rule unless the party challenging it makes a clear showing that the rule is incorrect and harmful.")......
  • Fed. Home Loan Bank of Seattle v. Credit Suisse Sec. (Usa) LLC
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 3 Octubre 2019
    ...Corp. Ltd., 186 Wash.2d 716, 729 n.9, 381 P.3d 32 (2016) ; accord Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wn.2d 875, 880-84, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999). The value of stability in the law in this context is certainly weightier than in some other contexts. For example, erroneous interpretations......
  • Pruitt v. Douglas County
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 17 Abril 2003
    ...flow; and (3) failure to exercise due care in preventing unnecessary damage. Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wash.2d 858, 866, 983 P.2d 626, 993 P.2d 900 (1999) (refusing to abandon the common enemy doctrine altogether in favor of the reasonable use rule); Borden, 113 Wash.App. at 367-68, 53 P.3d 102......
  • In re Hinton
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 18 Noviembre 2004
    ...re Det. of Campbell, 139 Wash.2d 341, 348, 986 P.2d 771 (1999) (citing Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wash.2d 875, 882, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999)). Under Andress, the petitioners' judgments and sentences are necessarily invalid on their face; thus, RCW 10.73.090(1)'s procedural time......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 7: Environmental Regulation (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...of Spokane, No. 97-2-00544-7 (Wash. Super. Ct., Spokane Cnty Nov. 11, 1997): 17.4 Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wn.2d 858, 983 P.2d 626, amended, 993 P.2d 900 (1999): 11.2(1), 11.2(3), 11.2(3)(b), 11.2(3)(c), 11.2(7) D_____________________________________________________________________ Dahlgren v.......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Vols. 1 & 2: Washington Real Estate Essentials (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Ketner Bros., Inc. v. Nichols, 52 Wn.2d 353, 324 P.2d 1093 (1958): 22.3(1)(b)(iv) Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wn.2d 875, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999): 5.5(5), 9.2(1), 10.5(2), 13.2 Key Tronic Corp., Inc. v. Aetna (CIGNA) Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., 124 Wn.2d 618, 881 P.2d 201 (1994)......
  • §11.2 - Rights and Duties with Regard to Surface Waters
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 7: Environmental Regulation (WSBA) Chapter 11 Surface Water
    • Invalid date
    ...Ry. Co., 85 Wash. 395, 148 P. 567 (1915)). This definition was affirmed in Currens v. Sleek, 138 Wn.2d 858, 861, 983 P.2d 626, amended, 993 P.2d 900 (1999) (Surface water is vagrant or diffused [water] produced by rain, melting snow, or springs.) (quoting King Cnty., 62 Wn.2d In Grundy v. T......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Real Property Deskbook Series Volume 3: Real Property Interests & Duties of Third Parties (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Yakima Interurban Lines Ass'n, 156 Wn.2d 253, 126 P.3d 16 (2006): 1.2(2) Key Design, Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wn.2d 875, 983 P.2d 653, amended, 993 P.2d 900 (1999): 8.5(2)(b) Kim v. Lee, 145 Wn.2d 79, 31 P.3d 665, 43 P.3d 1222 (2001): 10.3(2) Kincaid v. City of Seattle, 74 Wash. 617, 134 P. 504 (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT