Are Accounts Receivable the Same as Open Account?

[RSB]

Are accounts receivable the same exact type of account as Open Accounts?

Washington admended their laws concerning the SOL of accounts receivable.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202007/1145.SL.pdf

[direred]

Hard to know without seeing more context.

[RSB]

The term "open accounts" is never mentioned.

[direred]

Doesn't mean a thing. What does matter is where it is relative to the other statutes for civil procedure. It's taken completely out of context in that bill.

[willingtocope]

Exactly. "Accounts receivable" usually implies business to business transactions, but, the PDF is nebulous enough that it might apply to consumer credit also.

[RSB]

From the RCW:

*** CHANGE IN 2007 *** (SEE 1145.SL) ***

The following actions shall be cRCW 4.16.040

Actions limited to six years.

ommenced within six years:

(1) An action upon a contract in writing, or liability express or implied arising out of a written agreement.

(2) An action upon an account receivable incurred in the ordinary course of business.

(3) An action for the rents and profits or for the use and occupation of real estate.

[1989 c 38 § 1; 1980 c 105 § 2; 1927 c 137 § 1; Code 1881 § 27; 1854 p 363 § 3; RRS § 157.]

Notes:

Application -- 1980 c 105: See note following RCW 4.16.020.

4.16.080

Actions limited to three years.

The following actions shall be commenced within three years:

(1) An action for waste or trespass upon real property;

(2) An action for taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an action for the specific recovery thereof, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated;

(3) Except as provided in RCW 4.16.040(2), an action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, which is not in writing, and does not arise out of any written instrument;

(4) An action for relief upon the ground of fraud, the cause of action in such case not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud;

(5) An action against a sheriff, coroner, or constable upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in his official capacity and by virtue of his office, or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution; but this subdivision shall not apply to action for an escape;

(6) An action against an officer charged with misappropriation or a failure to properly account for public funds intrusted to his custody; an action upon a statute for penalty or forfeiture, where an action is given to the party aggrieved, or to such party and the state, except when the statute imposing it prescribed a different limitation: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, The cause of action for such misappropriation, penalty or forfeiture, whether for acts heretofore or hereafter done, and regardless of lapse of time or existing statutes of limitations, or the bar thereof, even though complete, shall not be deemed to accrue or to have accrued until discovery by the aggrieved party of the act or acts from which such liability has arisen or shall arise, and such liability, whether for acts heretofore or hereafter done, and regardless of lapse of time or existing statute of limitation, or the bar thereof, even though complete, shall exist and be enforceable for three years after discovery by aggrieved party of the act or acts from which such liability has arisen or shall arise.

[1989 c 38 § 2; 1937 c 127 § 1; 1923 c 28 § 1; Code 1881 § 28; 1869 p 8 § 28; 1854 p 363 § 4; RRS § 159.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: Transitional proviso omitted from subsection (6). The proviso reads: "PROVIDED, FURTHER, That no action heretofore barred under the provisions of this paragraph shall be commenced after ninety days from the time this act becomes effective;".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glossary of Terms | Comments about this site | Privacy Notice | Accessibility Information | Disclaimer

[RSB]

I am trying to understand what the SOL for visa credit cards is in Washington.

from the RCW above:" in part for a six year statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit, based upon a breach of a contract, that is in writing, or based upon a written agreement and for filing a lawsuit based on an account receivable incurred in the ordinary course of business. The law provides for a three year statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit based on a contract not in writing"

SO....The applicable statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit based upon an open account is either three or six years depending upon whether the lawsuit is based upon a written contract. The issue as to whether a credit card account is based upon a written contract depends upon whether a person received any type of written agreement from a credit card company and the terms of the written agreement. And whether or not the account is classified as accounts receivable is mentioned in the new revised law, but open ene\ded accounts are not.

Washington's credit laws are not clear.

[RSB]

If anyone has an opinion or interpretation on the above....thankyou for sharing it.