Skip to main content

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

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,751 chars
inconsistent 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