Jump to content

WA State SOL


Recommended Posts

OK - It has been mentinoed in serveral other posts about SOL in Washington State, but I found this pertaining to what constitutes a "written contract" in WA state. The seemingly never-ending question is this: Is a credit card agreement considered a written contract (6 year SOL) or an open contract(3 year SOL)? I have heard both, I've heard that the courts consider it as a 6 year. What do y'all think based on this, specifically for a merchant credit card, such as a best buy card or chevron card?

RCW 19.36:

Contracts and credit agreements requiring writings

19.36.100

"Credit agreement" defined.

"Credit agreement" means an agreement, promise, or commitment to lend money, to otherwise extend credit, to forbear with respect to the repayment of any debt or the exercise of any remedy, to modify or amend the terms under which the creditor has lent money or otherwise extended credit, to release any guarantor or cosigner, or to make any other financial accommodation pertaining to a debt or other extension of credit.

[2000 c 171 § 53; 1990 c 211 § 1.]

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

19.36.110

Enforceability of credit agreements — Effect of oral agreements and partial performance.

A credit agreement is not enforceable against the creditor unless the agreement is in writing and signed by the creditor. The rights and obligations of the parties to a credit agreement shall be determined solely from the written agreement, and any prior or contemporaneous oral agreements between the parties are superseded by, merged into, and may not vary the credit agreement. Partial performance of a credit agreement does not remove the agreement from the operation of this section.

[1990 c 211 § 3.]

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

19.36.120

Exempt agreements.

RCW 19.36.100 through 19.36.140 and 19.36.900 shall not apply to: (1) A promise, agreement, undertaking, document, or commitment relating to a credit card or charge card; or (2) a loan of money or extension of credit to a natural person that is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and not primarily for investment, business, agricultural, or commercial purposes.

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

19.36.130

Notice required.

If a notice complying with RCW 19.36.140, is not given simultaneously with or before a credit agreement is made, RCW 19.36.100 through 19.36.140 and 19.36.900 shall not apply to the credit agreement. Notice, once given to a debtor, shall be effective as to all subsequent credit agreements and effective against the debtor, and its guarantors, successors, and assigns.

[1990 c 211 § 4.]

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

19.36.140

Notice — Form and contents.

The creditor shall give notice to the other party on a separate document or incorporated into one or more of the documents relating to a credit agreement. The notice shall be in type that is bold face, capitalized, underlined, or otherwise set out from surrounding written materials so it is conspicuous. The notice shall state substantially the following:

Oral agreements or oral commitments to loan money, extend credit, or to forbear from enforcing repayment of a debt are not enforceable under Washington law.

[1990 c 211 § 5.]

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

19.36.900

Effective date — Application — 1990 c 211.

RCW 19.36.100 through 19.36.140 shall take effect July 1, 1990, and shall apply only to credit agreements entered into on or after July 1, 1990.

[1990 c 211 § 6.]

So am I safe to interpret that since RCW 19.36.120 makes credit cards and charge cards exempt from being defined as a "written contract", then by default a different SOL applies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the heart of the issue. There seems to be NO quantitative information on this. A lawyer I asked told me the courts seem to enforce these agreements as written contracts as opposed to open ended. There's seemingly nothing to say specifically abotu credit card or merchant card agreements except what I found above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You couldn't post this in the old thread?

A contract for sale aka contract for the sale of goods has a seperate SOLC in most states. Any state that I have examined, considers store merchant accounts (non visa/mc/discover) cards that are used solely for the purchase of goods from the store to be a contract for sale IE 4 year SOLC.

Without looking it up, RCW 19.36 looks like the state TILA which has zilch to do with what we are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RCW 4.16.150

Action on mutual open accounts.

In an action brought to recover a balance due upon a mutual open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties, the cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued from the time of the last item proved in the account on either side, but whenever a period of more than one year shall have elapsed between any of a series of items or demands, they are not to be deemed such an account.

This seems to say a 1-year SOL...

I suppose i could have posted in the old thread..but I thought the legal aspect warrants this one. Sorry if I was remiss...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading that slightly more throroughly, it specifically exempts itself from consumer debt. Did you even read what you quoted?

RCW 19.36.100 through 19.36.140 and 19.36.900 shall not apply to: (1) A promise, agreement, undertaking, document, or commitment relating to a credit card or charge card; or (2) a loan of money or extension of credit to a natural person that is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and not primarily for investment, business, agricultural, or commercial purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't apply! I know.

I interpret it as the statute says "these things are considered written. Then it says "these don't apply". I'm taking that to mean then, that a CC agreement is NOT A WRITTEN CONTRACT and thus, a different SOL applies. That's my reasoning.

Am i off on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.