Jones Associates v. Eastside Properties
Court of Appeals of Washington
704 P.2d 681 (1985)
- Written by Megan Schwarz, JD
Facts
In 1977, Jones Associates (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Eastside Properties (Eastside) (defendant) under which Jones Associates was to provide a feasibility study, master plan, nine record surveys, and nine short plats for Eastside for $17,480. The contract was a standard printed form, but Eastside modified the contract to contain, among other things, an express condition regarding a satisfactory economic feasibility study. In May of 1978, Jones Associates submitted a short plat application to King County for approval and the application was rejected citing a number of conditions that needed to be met. Jones Associates and Eastside revised their contract so that Jones Associates could complete those conditions. The amended contract contained an additional flat fee of $12,550. In 1980, Eastside paid Jones Associates $15,000, but failed to pay Jones Associates the rest of the money because Jones Associates never obtained approval of the short plat application from King County. Jones Associates brought suit against Eastside for the remainder of the money. The trial court granted Eastside’s motion to dismiss stating that approval of the short plat application was a condition precedent to Eastside’s payment. Jones Associates appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Swanson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.