Court Opinion

ID: 9602323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:53:07.049362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:02.386956
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(dissenting) — The majority opinion relies upon a factual determination that Kroshus was in business for himself. I believe that there is evidence from which it reasonably may be inferred that Kroshus was in business for himself and the Texaco Company for the purpose of making money. In the printed documents it furnished (Lease, Agreement of Sale, Rider thereto, Texaco Retailer Travel Card Agreement and two Gasoline Storage and Withdrawal Agreements), the Company established the right to control nearly every aspect of the business. There is a question of material fact whether the handling of the money was of no consequence to the Company in the operation of the station and the business of selling Texaco products. Pagarigan v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 16 Wn. App. 34, 552 P.2d 1065 (1976).
*268I would reverse and remand for trial.
Reconsideration denied October 5, 1981.
Review denied by Supreme Court January 8, 1982.