Legal Opinion

Lofberg v. Viles

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1951No. 31683PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinley, J.

Appellants, G. W. Viles and Ethelind Viles, owned a house and lot in McFadden’s Addition to Chehalis. Respondent Dr. Carl Lofberg talked with Mr. Viles in regard to purchasing the property. After some negotiations, Dr. Lofberg met Mr. Viles at his place of business and they went to the latter’s home to discuss the details of the sale. These were agreed upon.

Dr. Lofberg thought some sort of a written agreement was needed. He telephoned a banker acquaintance and inquired as to what a written real-estate contract of sale should contain. Apparently, Dr. Lofberg was advised, and thereupon informed…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Martin v. SeigelWashington Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Geoghegan v. DeverWashington Supreme Court · 1948
  3. Bacon v. GardnerWashington Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Rosenbaum v. EvansWashington Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Kaufmann v. WoodardWashington Supreme Court · 1945

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Berg v. TingWashington Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Key Design Inc. v. MoserWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Key Design, Inc. v. MoserWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Tenco, Inc. v. ManningWashington Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Platts v. ArneyWashington Supreme Court · 1955

3 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