Court Opinion

ID: 9602961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:02:01.435535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:07.601214
License: Public Domain

Hamley, J.
(dissenting) — I readily agree that actions to recover money paid by mistake are usually based on the theory of unjust enrichment. I do not agree that this is the only theory on which liability can be predicated under the facts of this case.
The contractors expressly obligated themselves, for a specified sum of money, to supply the materials and construct a house for the owners, according to plan. When they demanded and received one thousand dollars more than the specified sum, they breached these express terms of the contract. This action, therefore, may and should be regarded as one to recover damages sustained by reason of that breach. If so regarded, it is an action upon a contract in writing, or liability express or implied arising out of a written agreement, within the meaning of RCW 4.16.040 (2), Rem. Rev. Stat., §157 (2).
Of the eight decisions of this court cited in the majority opinion, recovery under the six-year statute of limitations was denied in but two: Seattle v. Walker, 87 Wash. 609, 152 Pac. 330, and Edwards v. Surety Finance Co., 176 Wash. 534, 30 P. (2d) 225. In both of these cases, the excess payments were made in violation of law. The right to recover such payments was, for that reason, held to be predicated upon *296a liability implied in law. I cannot see that these decisions furnish any basis for a like conclusion here.
We have not previously had occasion to construe ROW 4.16.040 (2) with reference to an overpayment of the kind here presented. It has been noted, however, that this statute .is “very broad in its scope.” DeBritz v. Sylvia, 21 Wn. (2d) 317, 150 P. (2d) 978. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, I believe that it is broad enough to sustain this action and accomplish simple justice between these parties.
Grady, C. J., and Finley, J., concur with Hamley, J.