# Hoffer v. State

> Washington Supreme Court · July 27, 1989 · 113 Wash. 2d 148

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9545762

## Case

- **Full name:** Arthur Hoffer, Et Al, Appellants, v. the State of Washington, Et Al, Respondents
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 27, 1989
- **Citations:** 113 Wash. 2d 148; 776 P.2d 963; 1989 Wash. LEXIS 96
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pearson
- **Judges:** Durham, Pearson
- **Cited by:** 84 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9545762

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reaffirming the substantial contributing factor test after the Supreme Court adopted a strict privity test for federal securities law in Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 108 S.Ct. 2063, 100 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988)
- declining to apply federal interpretation of a federal securities law to similar Washington securities law

## Opinion text

Pearson, J.
(dissenting)—I dissent for the reasons given in my dissent in Haberman v. WPPSS, 109 Wn.2d 107, 179-90 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 750 P.2d 254 (1987). RCW 21.20-.430(1), by its plain language, requires privity of the seller and the person buying the security. My views are reinforced by Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622 , 100 L. Ed. 2d 658 , 108 S. Ct. 2063 (1988). As the majority acknowledges, Pinter now requires a strict privity analysis of the term "seller" under section 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77Z(1).
The underpinnings of Haberman came from lower federal court decisions which are no longer authoritative in light of the Pinter ruling. It is an anomaly for the majority to adhere to a "substantial contributive factor" analysis which has now been discredited by the United States Supreme Court.
I also disagree that a negligent misrepresentation claim survives summary judgment. My reasons are contained in my dissent in Haberman v. WPPSS, supra.
Andersen, J., concurs with Pearson, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9545762. Public record. Not legal advice.