Source: http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/051wn2d/051wn2d0696.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:21:25+00:00

Document:
CONTRACTS - REQUISITES AND VALIDITY - BILATERAL CONTRACTS. A bilateral contract is one in which there are reciprocal promises, and the promise by one party is the consideration for the promise by the other, and each party is bound by his promise to the other.
 JOINT ADVENTURES - PARTNERSHIP - ACCOUNTING AND SETTLEMENT -WRONGFUL ACTS - BREACH OF CONTRACT. A partner, especially one for a special purpose, may abandon the contract and thereby forfeit his right to an equal share of the proceeds of the business.
 CONTRACTS - CONSTRUCTION - ENTIRE OR SEVERABLE CONTRACTS. Whether a contract is entire or divisible depends very largely on its terms and on the intention of the parties disclosed thereby; and as a general rule a contract is entire when by its terms, nature, and purpose, it contemplates that each and all of its parts are interdependent and common to one another and to the consideration.
 SAME. The owners of a fishing boat were not entitled to an accounting of a joint venture entered into by the execution of a contract under which the plaintiffs and the owners of three other fishing boats were to pool all fish caught by them during an entire fishing season and each boat was to share alike in the gross proceeds derived thereform, where the plaintiffs abandoned the enterprise before the end of the fishing season; since the whole of the defendants' promise went to the whole of the plaintiffs' promise, and such promises were bilateral and mutual in every respect and incapable of division.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, No. 459440, Copass, J., entered February 1, 1957, upon findings in favor of the defendants, in an action for an accounting, tried to the court. Affirmed.
Anthony M. Ursich and Richard J. Jensen, for appellants.
Landon & Aiken, for respondents.
Appellants, who were plaintiffs below, appeal from a final judgment, after trial, dismissing their complaint for an accounting of a joint venture. The evidence is not brought here, so the question is: Do the findings support the judgment?
«1» Reported in 321 P. (2d) 547.
 See 2 A. L. R. 643; 12 Am. Jur. 870.
". . . It is hereby mutually agreed by all parties hereto concerned that the Purse Seine Boats EMBLEM, HOLY CROSS, SEA FOAM and INVINCIBLE are to pool all fish caught by them during the entire fishing season in the Alaskan Peninsula and Port Moller Areas, each boat to share and share alike the gross proceeds derived therefrom. . . ."
«2» "A `bilateral contract' is one in which there are reciprocal promises, and promise by one party is the consideration for the promise by the other and each party is bound by his promise to the other. Cook v. Johnson, 221 P. 2d 525, 527, 37 Wash. 2d 19." 1 Wash. Words and Phrases 238.
"The distinction between a unilateral contract and a bilateral contract is that, in the former, the offer or promise of the one party does not become binding or enforcible until there is performance by the other party, whereas, in the latter, it is not performance which makes the contract binding, but rather the giving of a promise by the one party for the promise of the other." Higgins v. Egbert, 28 Wn. (2d) 313, 317, 182 P. (2d) 58.
accuracy of the statements in the absence of the evidence. Certain it is, however, we cannot say that at the time of the execution of the contract the parties bad any circumstances in mind which would make it severable.
Appellants' counsel admitted in argument that the appellants breached their contract, as found by the trial court, by abandoning the joint venture two weeks after the contract was executed. No excuse was offered therefor, and the court found that there was none.
Nevertheless, the appellants insist upon the equitable remedy of an accounting - not for the entire fishing season, but for the two weeks preceding appellants' breach of the contract.
"But a partner, especially one for a special purpose, may abandon the contract and thereby foreit his right to an equal share of the proceeds of the business. Henry v. Bassett, 75 Mo. 89; Denver v. Roane, 99 U. S. 355; Marsh's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 30; Zell's Appeal, 126 Pa. St. 329."
While we might rest our decision upon that ground alone, because of the earnestness with which the appellants' counsel presents his views that the contract was severable and the trial court found it to be entire and inseverable, we pass to a consideration of that subject.
boats, but certain it is that we cannot now make such an agreement for them.
"Whether a number of promises constitute one contract or more than one is to be determined by inquiring `whether the parties assented to all the promises as a single whole, so that there would have been no bargain whatever, if any promise or set of promises were struck out.'"
«3» The same view was expressed in Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. Nat. Theatre Corp., (C.C.A. 4th), 49 F. (2d) 64. It has been recognized in this state in Carmack v. Drum, 27 Wash. 382, 387, 67 Pac. 808. See, also, Sunset Shingle Co. v. Northwest Electric & Water Works, 118 Wash. 416, 203 Pac. 978; Love land v. Reese Co., 105 Wash. 204, 207, 177 Pac. 719; Brechlin v. Night Hawk Mining Co., 49 Wash. 198, 94 Pac. 928; Chilberg v. Jones, 3 Wash. 530, 28 Pac. 1104. The English cases are collected in 8 Halsbury's Laws of England (3d ed.) 198, § 336. For text discussion see 4 Page, Law of Contracts 3606, chapter LXV; 3 Williston on Contracts 2300, § 818; 12 Am. Jur. 870, 871, 872, §§ 315, 316, 317.
promise. Such promises were bilateral and mutual in every respect, and incapable of division. Appellants abandoned the enterprise and did not complete their part of the bargain.
Appellants are manifestly not entitled to an accounting in equity.
HILL, C. J., ROSELLINI, DONWORTH, and HUNTER, JJ., concur.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 336
 § 818