Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Adams v. Whited
Citations: 31 Wash. App. 413; 642 P.2d 412; 1982 Wash. App. LEXIS 2587Docket: No. 4297-9-III
Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; March 16, 1982; Washington; State Appellate Court
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Adams appeal the dismissal of their consumer protection claim against Mr. Whited and J. Pat O'Neill realtors, following a denied motion for summary judgment. The core issue is whether the alleged deceptive conduct has the potential for repetition. Randall Whited, a builder, purchased land for FHA-265 housing, facilitated by O'Neill, who had an ongoing business relationship with Whited. After the Adams executed a purchase agreement for a home to be built with 768 square feet, construction halted when it was discovered that a restrictive covenant required a minimum main floor area of 1,200 square feet. The Adams asserted claims for breach of contract, negligence, and consumer protection violations. O'Neill's motion for summary judgment on the consumer protection claim was granted, with the court ruling that the transaction was isolated and lacked potential for repetition. The trial proceeded on the negligence and breach of contract claims, resulting in a jury award for negligent misrepresentation. The appellate court emphasizes the Consumer Protection Act's broad interpretation while noting limitations; recovery is possible for statutory violations or deceptive practices affecting public interest. The Anhold case outlines that public interest is shown if deceptive acts induce action or inaction, cause damage, and have potential for repetition. The appellate court finds that material factual disputes exist regarding the potential for repetition of the deceptive practices, particularly concerning the property listing intended for public sale, and concludes that the trial court's summary judgment on this claim was inappropriate. J. Pat O'Neill, a real estate company owner, affirmed the importance of the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for informing the public about property availability, highlighting its extensive circulation and the necessity for listings to provide adequate information for 1,500 realtors to interpret accurately for potential buyers. O'Neill admitted that he did not verify restrictive covenants before advertising properties as suitable for specific projects. The document indicates an unresolved material issue regarding potential violations of the Consumer Protection Act, prompting a reversal of the Superior Court's judgment and a remand for further hearing. The excerpt outlines specific building covenant requirements and references legal precedents concerning violations of various statutes, noting that not all statutory violations constitute per se violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The court distinguishes cases involving public involvement in advertising from those without, emphasizing that the context of advertising and its impact on the public is critical for determining unfair or deceptive acts under the law.