Source: http://www.markdwalters.com/mdwblog/previous/2
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 05:57:26+00:00

Document:
In copyright litigation, fair use is an affirmative defense, so the party raising it has the burden of proof and persuasion. Courts undertake a case‐by‐case analysis and consider each statutory factor weighing them together in light of the purposes of copyright, which is to protect authors. Courts are required to consider each factor, with the rule that some factors are more important than others, and the market impact factor being the single most important factor.
Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) makes it unlawful to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. The purpose of the CPA is to protect the public and foster honest competition.The CPA applies to activities both before and after a sale, and may be violated by failure to disclose material facts. Smith v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 39 Wn.App. 740, 747-48, 695 P.2d 600, review denied, 103 Wn.2d 1041 (1985).
To prove that a business engaged in an unfair or deceptive act, a CPA plaintiff does not have to demonstrate that the act was intended to deceive, but only that the alleged act had the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the purchasing public. Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc., 134 Wn.2d 24, 30, 948 P.2d 816 (1997). Washington's High Court has held that even a breach of a private contract can affect the public interest, and support a CPA lawsuit if additional plaintiffs “have been or will be injured in exactly the same fashion.” Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 105 Wn.2d 778, 790, 719 P.2d 531 (1986).
Washington law establishes a legal duty on sellers to disclose facts material to a transaction when the facts are known to the seller but not easily discoverable by the buyer. For example, in Testo v. Russ Dunmire Oldsmobile, Inc., 16 Wn.App. 39, 51, 554 P.2d 349 (1976), a car dealer failed to disclose that a Camaro was modified for racing, which increased the costs of repairs and maintenance. The Testo court held that the dealer's act of withholding these facts material to the sale was a deceptive act under the CPA.
The seller's legal duty to disclose material facts also exists in real estate transactions. In McRae v. Bolstad, 101 Wn.2d 161, 162-65, 676 P.2d 496 (1984), homebuyers successfully prosecuted an action under the CPA when the home sellers failed to disclose sewer and drainage problems. In holding that the homebuyer's claim met the CPA's public interest element, the court determined that the seller's failure to disclose material facts about the property was an unfair and deceptive act or practice.
In addition to this general duty to disclose material facts, the Disclosure Addendum to a Purchase and Sale Agreement for real estate creates a contractual duty for the seller to disclosure material facts. Accordingly, both Washington case law and the standard Disclosure Addendum to a Purchase and Sale Agreement used in Washington for real estate transactions imposes high legal duty on the seller to disclosure material adverse facts not easily discoverable by the buyers.
Owning and running a business can become overwhelming, and going it alone can be scary and unwise. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Many privately held businesses do not have a Board of Directors to guide the owners and help grow the business. These companies can benefit greatly from having a professional Advisory Board to help the owners and management with business strategy, decision-making and risk management.
Working with non-lawyer industry experts, such as CPAs, HR Professionals, CPAs, Payroll and Compensation experts, Sales and Marketing Consultants, Mark can help you form an Advisory Board for your business to bring objectivity, perspective and experience to the table and help the owners focus and on the business issues at hand and grow the business more profitably.
With decades of experience, and a diverse range of industry contacts to call upon, an Advisory Board can help management accelerate growth, avoid costly mistakes, make better decisions and transform confusion into confidence.
The law does not apply to employees performing work in Washington who are excluded from the definition of “employee” in the Washington Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.010(3), this includes true administrative employees, white-collar exempt employees, outside salespersons, and others. Thus, for most employers this law only applies to non-exempt employees and includes part-time, full-time, seasonal and temporary non-exempt employees.
Starting Jan. 1, 2018, employers in Washington will be required to provide most of their employees with paid sick leave.
Employers must provide regular notification to employees about the amount of paid sick leave available.
​Employers are allowed to provide employees with more generous carry over and accrual policies.
For absences that qualify for leave under the Washington's Domestic Violence Leave Act.
The McCleary school funding lawsuit has been active for years, and it still rages on. What follows is language from a November 15, 2017, Order from the Washington State Supreme Court that is keeping the pressure on Washington State's Legislature to properly fund public education. These two paragraphs will give you a feel for the legal issue and facts. If you're interested in reading the full Order, you can download it here.
"In McCleary v. State, 173 Wn.2d 477, 539, 269 P.3d 227 (2012), this court unanimously held that the State was not meeting its "paramount duty... to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders." Wash. CONST, art. IX, § 1. Recognizing that the legislature had enacted a promising set of reforms and was making progress toward funding those reforms, the court deferred to the legislature's chosen means of discharging its constitutional duty. McCleary, 173 Wn.2d at 484, 543-44. However, the court retained jurisdiction to help ensure steady and measurable progress in the State's plan to fully implement reforms by September 1, 2018, a deadline the State itself had set."
"Nearly six years have passed, and today, the court must determine whether the State has made the grade. As explained below, over the past several years the State has made significant progress in fully funding the program of basic education, including by amply funding most of its components. Further, the 2017 legislature enacted a funding system that, when fully implemented, will achieve constitutional compliance according to the benchmarks that have consistently guided judicial oversight. However, by its own admission, the State will not meet the established deadline of September 1, 2018, as to all components. Instead, the funding system adopted in Engrossed House Bill 2242, 65th Leg., 3d Spec. Sess. (Wash. 2017) (EHB 2242) delays by over a year implementation of a constitutionally compliant salary model, a critical part of meaningful reform. While the court can appreciate the political and budgetary challenges that may explain the State's decision to postpone full funding of the salary model, it cannot accept part compliance as full compliance. The court's constitutional responsibility is to the schoolchildren of this state who have an enforceable right under article IX, section 1 to an amply funded education. We cannot erode that constitutional right by saying that the State is now "close enough" to constitutional compliance. The goals have long been clear, the deadline has long been clear, and the meaning of "amply fund" has long been clear. Until the State enacts measures that fully implement its program of basic education by the September 1, 2018 deadline, it remains out of compliance. The court will retain jurisdiction, continue to impose daily sanctions, and reserve all enforcement options to compel compliance with its decision and orders."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1