GRATUITOUS PROMISES-A NEW WRIT?

Under the early common law, the fact situations which presented actionable wrongs were limited in number and stereotyped into various writs which issued from the Lord Chancellor. Only as new writs were devised by him was it possible for new fact situations to achieve the dignity of justiciability and so raise legal rights and duties. But with the liberalization of pleading the recognition of new legal rights and duties became a judicial function. In consequence, the constant struggle of new fact patterns for a place in the law is now principally waged before the courts. In this struggle some fail, others succeed, and with those which emerge victorious there appears appurtenant adjective law, remedies and rules of damages calculated to place on the culpable party the burden of responsibility for the consequences of his violation of duty

Secured Transactions (Other Than Real Estate Mortgages)—A Comparison of the Law in Washington and the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9 [Part 2]

Continues the article started in volume 29, number 1, with section 9—301, Persons Who Take Priority Over Unperfected Security Interests

Creditors\u27 Rights

Covers laws on nurserymen, seed, sprayers and dusters, and statutory liens and on liens for taxes

Donee Beneficiaries—Deckler v. Fowler

A and B contract, A promising B to render at a future date some performance to C. What are the legal relations between A and C? B and C? A hundred years ago the answers to these questions would have required consideration of something called privity of contract and might well have been no legal relations . Today, however, we can, on the basis of many decisions, say with certainty that in most states A owes a contract duty to C on breach of which C may have the usual remedies of a contract obligee. In now accepted terminology C is a beneficiary of the A-B contract. The legal relations between B and C will vary according to B\u27s purpose in procuring A\u27s promise. If his purpose was to confer upon C a gratuity, C will be described as a donee beneficiary and B is a donor of the right which C acquires against A. If B\u27s purpose was to have rendered to C a performance which will discharge a duty owed by B to C, although in a sense the recipient of a gratuity, C is usually referred to as a creditor beneficiary and for some purposes the previously existing debtor-creditor relationship between B and C is changed to one of surety-creditor, A being regarded as now the principal debtor. The following discussion will be limited to donee beneficiaries

Security Transactions

Covers material and equipment suppliers\u27 liens—time of giving notice of lien to property owners and priorities between liens

Secured Transactions (Other Than Real Estate Mortgages)—A Comparison of the Law in Washington and the Uniform Commercial Code Article 9

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute in late 1951 approved The Uniform Commercial Code. A few last-minute changes were made in 1953 and the Code is presumably now in final form. The period of critical appraisal, evaluation, and legislative consideration is at hand. It is the purpose of this article to indicate the Secured Transactions consequences, were the Code enacted in the state of Washington. An effort will also be made to suggest the relative advantages of the Code and the existing law; these suggestions should be received with caution. The reader can and should decide for himself wherein lies the better solution

Regulation of Small Loans in Washington

During the past 40 years legislative attempts to solve the small loan problem have taken various forms. Fairly typical are the Washington statutes which are the main subject matter of this paper

Security Transactions

Covers foreign corporations and organizations—mortgages—right of action; materialmen\u27s liens—time and manner of giving notice of lien to property owners; and trust receipts

The Uniform Commercial Code—A Modernization of Commercial Law

Editor\u27s Note: The Uniform Commercial Code continues to be the major topic of interest in the commercial law area as additional states enact this important statute. The roster now includes Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. This issue of the Review contains the first of a series of articles by Richard Cosway, which will complete the discussion of the sales coverage of the Code, commenced by Ralph W. Johnson (Sales-A Comparison of the Law in Washington and the Uniform Commercial Code, 34 Wash. L. Rev. 78 (1959)), and will continue with a comparison of the Code and the Washington law on negotiable instruments. In 1954 the Review published Secured Transactions (Other Than Real Estate Mortgages)-A Comparison of the Law in Washington and the Uniform Commerical Code, by Warren L. Shattuck (29 Wash. L. Rev. 1, 195, 263 (1954)). It is hoped that these articles will provide a nucleus for the Washington annotations which will no doubt be promptly prepared if the Code is enacted here