Court Opinion

ID: 9607654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:01:08.669699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:39.711920
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.*
(concurring)—I concur in the majority's result. The appellant, ARCO, had the burden of proving, see RCW 19.100.220, that its percentage of sales lease came under one of the exceptions to the definition of a franchise fee. See RCW 19.100.010(11). The trial court found that the defendant failed to carry that burden. Were I to reweigh the evidence before the trial court, I might well have reached a different conclusion. There is, however, substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings which, in turn, support its conclusions. See Goodman v. Darden, Doman & Stafford Assocs., 100 Wn.2d 476, 670 P.2d 648 (1983).
Reconsideration denied February 3, 1987.
Review denied by Supreme Court May 5, 1987.