Key Design, Inc. v. Moser

(concurring/dissenting) — I agree that the earnest money agreement is unenforceable because certain material terms were omitted. I write separately to take issue with the majority’s categorical refusal to apply a judicial admission exception to the rule announced in Martin v. Seigel, 35 Wn.2d 223, 212 P.2d 107, 23 A.L.R.2d 1 (1949).

*893In Martin, this court overruled Thompson, Swan & Lee v. Schneider, 127 Wash. 533, 221 P. 334 (1923)6 and stated that real property had to be described by the correct lot number, block number, addition, city, county, and state in a contract or agreement to sell or…