City of Everett v. Estate of Sumstad

(dissenting)—I agree with the majority's formulation of the issue, i.e., whether there was a contract for the sale of the contents of the safe, but I must respectfully dissent from its analysis.

Washington courts have long adhered to the objective manifestation theory in analyzing contract formation. Plumbing Shop, Inc. v. Pitts, 67 Wn.2d 514, 408 P.2d 382 (1965); Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Wohlman, 19 Wn. App. 670, 578 P.2d 530 (1978). Under this theory, it is the objective manifestations of the parties that are significant, not their secret, unexpressed intentions.1 Plumbing Shop, Inc.…