holding that Washington court had jurisdiction over foreign defendant that advertised there, noting that “[i]f our courts are not open, the state will be without a remedy in any court and the Consumer Protection Act will be rendered useless”
How later courts described this case
- holding that Washington court had jurisdiction over foreign defendant that advertised there, noting that “[i]f our courts are not open, the state will be without a remedy in any court and the Consumer Protection Act will be rendered useless”
- concluding that unfair competition cause of action arose from contacts because mailing sweepstakes entry information constituted illegal lottery within state
- citing, King County Water Dist. No. 68 v. Tax Com'n. 58 Wn.2d 282, 286, 362 P.2d 244 (1961)
- finding of fact that is actually a conclusion of law is treated as a conclusion on appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Finley, J.
(dissenting)—The basic issue in this appeal is whether the advertising promotion of the Reader’s Digest constitutes a lottery within the meaning of Const, art. 2, § 24.
I disagree with the majority’s resolution of this issue. It is difficult at best to believe that the framers of the constitution intended to prohibit such innocuous activities as the contest under consideration by this court. As I stated in Seattle Times Co. v. Tielsch, 80 Wn.2d 502, 512 , 495 P.2d 1366 (1972):
In view of the fact that many essentially harmless activities are rendered illegal by the application of contractual consideration principles to a constitutional lottery prohi *281 bition, I believe this court should reexamine its definition of consideration in the Safeway case [ 75 Wn.2d 339 ] and replace it with an out-of-pocket substantial expenditure test.
Contrary to the opinion of the majority, it seems clear that a contest which merely directs the participant’s attention to the promoter’s advertisements cannot reasonably result in such a “detriment to the participant” as to constitute sufficient consideration for a lottery. Since my view of this issue was fully expressed in Seattle Times Co. v. Tielsch, supra, no purpose would be served in further extending this dissent.
Petition for rehearing denied December 5, 1972.