Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 131. Second, we look at whether the defendant's conduct has created a
force or series of forces that are in continuous and active operation up to the time of sale, or
whether the defendant's conduct has created a situation harmless unless acted upon by other
No. 43018 5
- II
-
forces for which the defendant is not responsible. Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 131 3
- 2. Third, we
consider whether a time lapse occurred between the defendant's conduct toward the sale and the
time of the sale. Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 132. Under this test, the law may impose liability on
someone in addition to the immediate seller if the person's participation was a substantial
contributing factor in the violation of the Act. Haberman, 109 Wn.2d at 130.
This substantial contributive factor test applies only to persons who have the attributes of
a seller. Brin v. Stutzman, 89 Wn. App. 809, 829, 951 P.2d 291, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1004
1998).And the absence of any real promotional conduct on the part of a defendant supports the
conclusion that the defendant was not a substantial contributive factor. See Shinn v. Thrust IV,
Inc.,56 Wn. App. 827;851, 786 P.2d 285, review denied, 114 Wn.2d 1023 (1990).
B. Analysis
As a threshold matter we note that the Roberts rely on two undisputed facts to support
their claim that Donnerstag was a securities seller: (1)Donnerstag introduced them to DBSI and
2)Donnerstag received a fee. Even recognizing that Donnerstag introduced the Roberts to
DBSI and received a fee, we agree with the trial court and conclude as a matter of law that
Donnerstag did not sell the subject property to the Roberts.