Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley

756 P.2d 717, 110 Wash. 2d 695 (1988)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Crown Controls, Inc. v. Smiley

Washington Supreme Court
756 P.2d 717, 110 Wash. 2d 695 (1988)

Facts

Jim Smiley (defendant) operated a manufacturer’s representative/distributorship business. In January 1983, Smiley transferred ownership of the trade name Industrial Associates to North American Drill Supply, Inc. (Drill) (defendant). Smiley was the authorized representative and president of Drill. In June 1983, Smiley and Drill contracted with Crown Controls, Inc. (Crown) (plaintiff) through Michael Slomer, president of Crown, to supply gas-chlorination equipment for Drill’s customer in Guam. Smiley identified himself to Slomer as an agent for Industrial Associates and did not disclose that he was acting on behalf of Drill. The equipment was delivered and accepted by Smiley and Drill. Crown billed Industrial Associates for $9,136.03. Smiley and Drill also ordered pump control values. The Guam customer encountered problems with the valves and returned them to Crown. Smiley sent a check to Crown for $5,547.92, less than the $9,136.03 owed, due to the damage to the pump control valves. Crown filed a complaint in Snohomish County, Washington, against Smiley and Drill for the full amount owed. In response, Drill sued Crown in Oregon State Court to recover for the damaged pump control valves. Drill received judgment for $3,363.11 plus interest. In the Snohomish County action, Crown was granted summary judgment against only Drill, because the court found a material issue of fact existed regarding whether Smiley had disclosed that he was an agent of Drill. After trial, the court found that Smiley was personally liable for the entire debt to Crown due to his insufficient disclosure of agency for Drill. The court held that Crown had to elect between pursuing Smiley or Drill to collect on its judgment under the election-of-remedies doctrine. Crown pursed against Smiley. Smiley appealed to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, rejected the election-of-remedies doctrine, and imposed joint and several liability against Smiley and Drill. Smiley filed a petition for review appealing the court of appeals’ decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Durham, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 833,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership