Legal Opinion

Investment Exchange Realty, Inc. v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1973No. 42674PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

This is an action by a real estate broker to recover a commission for negotiation of a lease. The question presented is whether a broker has a duty to expressly disclose a dual agency in which the broker represented both the lessor and the lessee.

The facts are not disputed although there is a very real dispute as to the interpretation to be placed on the facts. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc. (appellant) is the owner of a shopping center in Renton. The Ralston Purina Company, a Missouri corporation (hereafter Ralston), is a large concern with numerous business operations. One of the Ralston enterprises…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Sylvester v. ImhoffWashington Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Mersky v. Multiple Listing Bureau of Olympia, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Moon v. PhippsWashington Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Frisell v. NewmanWashington Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Ramsey v. SedlarWashington Supreme Court · 1969

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Meerdink v. KriegerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1976
  2. Mallory v. WattIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Wesco Realty, Inc. v. DrewryCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1973
  4. Lindland v. United Business Investments, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Cogan v. Kidder, Mathews & Segner, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1982

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API