Pettaway v. Commercial Automotive Service, Inc.

(concurring in the result) — While I agree that the judgment for respondent for $825 should be affirmed for the reasons stated in the last two paragraphs of the majority opinion, I cannot agree with the majority in holding that the parties had entered into an enforceable contract, which could be the subject of an action for damages for the breach thereof.

In my opinion, the rule relating to real-estate contracts announced in Hedges v. Hurd, 47 Wn. (2d). 683, 289 P. (2d) 706 (to which I dissented), to the effect that an incomplete contract, while not sufficiently definite to be the basis for an…