Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Citation
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Parent Document
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 2014-01-28
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
- Western Plaza, LLC v. Tison, 180 Wash. App. 17 (2014)
Full Text
1,538 chars¶9 Further, the common law preserves citizens’ freedom to contract. Little Mountain Estates Tenants Ass’n v. Little Mountain Estates MHC, LLC, 169 Wn.2d 265, 269 n.3, 236 P.3d 193 (2010) (“ ‘Courts do not have the power, under the guise of interpretation, to rewrite contracts which the parties have deliberately made for themselves.’ ” (quoting Clements v. Olsen, 46 Wn.2d 445, 448, 282 P.2d 266 (1955))). “ ‘It is black letter law of contracts that the parties to a contract shall be bound by its terms.’ ” Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, LLC, 166 Wn.2d 510, 517, 210 P.3d 318 (2009) (quoting Adler v. Fred Lind Manor, 153 Wn.2d 331, 344, 103 P.3d 773 (2004)). In construing a contract, we give the parties’ intent as expressed in the instrument’s plain language controlling weight, and we give words in a contract their ordinary meaning. Cambridge Townhomes, LLC v. Pac. Star Roofing, Inc., 166 Wn.2d 475, 487, 209 P.3d 863 (2009). We may discover parties’ intent from “ ‘viewing the contract as a whole, the subject matter and objective of the contract, all the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract, the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties to the contract, and the reasonableness of respective interpretations advocated by the parties.’ ” In re Marriage of Litowitz, 146 Wn.2d 514, 528, 48 P.3d 261, 53 P.3d 516 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Scott Galvanizing, Inc. v. Nw. EnviroServices, Inc., 120 Wn.2d 573, 580-81, 844 P.2d 428 (1993)), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1191 (2003) . *23Discussion