Court Opinion

ID: 9792139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:23:54.34982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.750540
License: Public Domain

Cox, J.
(concurring) — I agree with the disposition of this matter. I write separately to focus on the question of the enforceability of clauses prohibiting oral modifications of leases.
In this case, we apply Washington’s common law of contracts to a commercial lease of realty to determine that the lease provision prohibiting oral modifications is unenforceable.3 While that is the correct result in this case, I caution that this application of a contract principle to a lease of realty should not signal indiscriminate application of all contract principles to leases of realty.
One widely-respected commentator notes that there are both historical and practical reasons for maintaining distinctions between the law of leases and that of contracts.4 Moreover, the same commentator suggests that the enforceability of clauses prohibiting oral modification of leases of *283realty may require legislation, such as that in the state of New York.5
This court has recently recognized that there continue to be limitations to the application of principles of contract to the law of leases. In Johnson v. Yousoofian,6 we observed that our Supreme Court has not retreated from its historical refusal to recognize an implied covenant of good faith where a landlord refuses to consent to assignment of a lease of realty where the lease is silent on the standard to he applied in making the decision. There are undoubtedly other examples where the law of contracts should not be applied to leases of real property.
It is sufficient to conclude that in this case the application of the contractual principle reaches the proper result. Any modification of the law respecting enforceability of clauses prohibiting oral modification of leases should be left to the Legislature.

Kelly Springfield Tire Co. v. Faulkner, 191 Wash. 549, 71 P.2d 382 (1937) (oral modification of guaranty despite contractual provision prohibiting such modification); Consolidated Elec. Distribs., Inc. v. Gier, 24 Wn. App. 671, 602 P.2d 1206 (1979) (oral termination of guaranty).

See Milton R. Friedman, Friedman on Leases § 1.1 (4th ed. 1997).

Friedman, at § 32.1.

Johnson v. Yousoofian, 84 Wn. App. 755, 760-62, 930 P.2d 921 (1996) (citing Alwen v. Tramontin, 131 Wash. 78, 228 P. 851, 40 A.L.R. 551 (1924)), review denied, 132 Wn.2d 1006 (1997); Coulos v. Desimone, 34 Wn.2d 87, 208 P.2d 105 (1949); and Ernst Home Ctr., Inc. v. Sato, 80 Wn. App. 473, 476, 910 P.2d 486 (1996)).