Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,796 chars

602 (2002). Summary judgment is proper when, after viewing the evidence in a light

most favorable to the opposing party, there are no issues of material fact and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Trimble v. Wash. State Univ., 140 Wn.2d

88, 93, 993 P.2d 259 (2000). All facts and reasonable inferences are construed in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. Summary judgment should be granted

if reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion based on all of the evidence. Id.

An option contract is “a complete, valid and binding agreement” to which general

contract principles apply. Bennett Veneer Factors, Inc. v. Brewer, 73 Wn.2d 849, 853,

441 P.2d 128 (1968). “In applying these general contract principles, our primary goal in

interpreting the option contract is to ascertain the parties’ mutual intent.” Chevalier v.

Woempner, 172 Wn. App. 467, 476, 290 P.3d 1031 (2012). Under the “objective

manifestation” theory of contracts, we determine the parties’ intent by focusing on the

objective manifestations expressed in their contract rather than focusing on unexpressed

subjective intentions. Hearst Commc’n, Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wn.2d 493, 503,

115 P.3d 262 (2005). Thus, courts will “impute an intention corresponding to the

reasonable meaning of the words used” in the contract. Id. The parties’ subjective intent

5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 36189-6-III
Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Burbank Prop., LLC

“is generally irrelevant if the intent can be determined from the actual words used” in the

contract. Id. at 504. Courts will interpret what was “written instead of what was

intended to be written.” Id. “Accordingly, we give language in the option contract its