Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Sprincin King Street Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 925 P.2d 217 (1996)

Citation
Sprincin King Street Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 925 P.2d 217 (1996)
Parent Document
Sprincin King Street Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc., 925 P.2d 217 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1996-10-28

Other Sections in This Document (75)

Full Text

329 chars
and the commercial as opposed to residential nature of the lease, all support the trial court’s decision. Sound’s counterclaim, although it states a claim for relief under the court’s general jurisdiction, is not grounded in facts which would excuse its failure to pay rent. Thus, the trial court properly refused to consider it.