Voorde Poorte v. Evans
Washington Court of Appeals
832 P.2d 105 (1992)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
William and Jeanette Evans (defendants) entered into a real-estate contract to buy a mobile home from Art and Ann Voorde Poorte (plaintiffs). The terms of the agreement set a closing date of August 15, 1987 and entitled the Evanses to possession at closing. The contract further provided that the risk of loss remained on the Voorde Poortes until closing, and that in the event the property was destroyed by fire, the Evanses had the right to terminate the contract. Because the Voorde Poortes had difficulty clearing title to the mobile home, the closing was delayed. During the time before closing, the Evanses took possession. Shortly thereafter, the mobile home was destroyed by a fire due to a malfunctioning electrical appliance. The Evanses notified the Voorde Poortes of their decision to terminate the contract. The Voorde Poortes subsequently brought suit against the Evanses, alleging breach of contract. The Evanses moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Evanses’ motion and dismissed the Voorde Poortes’ suit. The Voorde Poortes appealed, contending that the Evanses should bear the risk of loss of the mobile home because the Evanses had taken early possession of the home without the Voorde Poortes’ knowledge or consent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sweeney, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.