Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • T
  • Tacoma Northpark, LLC v. NW, LLCTacoma Northpark, LLC v. NW, LLC
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Tacoma Northpark, LLC v. NW, LLC

Court of Appeals of Washington
96 P.3d 454 (2004)


Facts

NW, LLC (NW) (defendant), owned a property that it wished to subdivide into 23 lots for individual sale and residential development. NW filed a plat with the City of Tacoma seeking approval of the subdivision plan. While the plat was pending, O’Connor & Associates, LLC (O’Connor), entered into an agreement with NW to buy the property. Addenda to the purchase agreement provided that the sale was subject to the city’s approval of the plat and gave NW’s warranty that the plat would be approved prior to closing. NW and O’Connor set closing dates for various of the 23 lots. However, the plat was not approved prior to these dates, and the sales did not close. O’Connor assigned United Builders of Washington, Inc. (United), two lots. When NW ran out of funds to complete the platting process, it sold the property to Tacoma Northpark, LLC (Tacoma Northpark) (plaintiff). Tacoma Northpark had no knowledge of NW’s prior sale agreement with O’Connor. Tacoma Northpark filed an action to quiet title against O’Connor, NW, and United, as well as certain lenders. O’Connor and United counterclaimed against Tacoma Northpark and additionally sued NW for breach of contract. Specifically, O’Connor argued that NW had breached its purchase agreement with O’Connor. The trial court found that NW had pursued plat approval in good faith and, for this reason, did not breach the purchase agreement. O’Connor appealed. On appeal, O’Connor argued that NW had failed to prove the impossibility of obtaining plat approval, making NW’s failure a breach of NW’s promise in the purchase agreement. NW argued that the plat approval was a condition precedent for the sale, not a contractual duty. For this reason, NW was excused from performance on the contract.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Quinn-Brintnall, C.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 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers


Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial