Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/361896_pub.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 361896_pub.pdf
Full Text
1,751 charsinconsistent with the trial court’s broad discretion to fashion equitable remedies. Cornish College of the Arts v. 1000 Virginia Ltd. Partnership, 158 Wn. App. at 218. Borton relies on a passage in Wharf Restaurant, Inc. v. Port of Seattle, 24 Wn. App. 601 (1979), that cites Professor Corbin in his treatise on the law of contracts. Corbin writes that courts have only granted an equitable graced period in cases wherein the holder of the option made valuable permanent improvements to the property. Wharf 8 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 36189-6-III Borton & Sons, Inc. v. Burbank Properties, LLC (dissent) Restaurant, Inc. v. Port of Seattle, 24 Wn. App. at 611, citing 1 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 35, at 146-47 (1963). In turn, I recognize that the four Washington decisions, in which courts have granted a grace period, entail the tenant fashioning permanent improvements to the real property. Pardee v. Jolly, 163 Wn.2d 558 (2008); Recreational Equipment, Inc. v. World Wrapps Northwest, Inc., 165 Wn. App. 553 (2011); Cornish College of the Arts v. 1000 Virginia Ltd. Partnership, 158 Wn. App. 203 (2010); Wharf Restaurant, Inc. v. Port of Seattle, 24 Wn. App. 601 (1979). I disagree, however, that, based on reference to Professor Corbin and the presence of improvements in the Washington decisions, Washington law always demands valuable permanent improvements as a precondition to an equitable grace period. I note that the five factors adopted in Wharf Restaurant, Inc. v. Port of Seattle do not include the optionee adding significant improvements to the property. Some of the Washington courts discuss the addition of improvements to the land or building when