Bc Tire Corp. v. Gte Directories Corp.

730 P.2d 726 (Wash App. 1986)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

BC (P) owns and operates a tire store in Everett, Washington. GTE (D) solicits and prints advertising in yellow pages for the Everett telephone directory. P met with a D salesman and signed a form for application for directory advertising. At the bottom and the front side of the application, there was notice of terms on the front that clearly indicated that there were material terms on the back. On the back of the application, there were explicit terms that it was mutually understood that the publication of the advertising requested in the Telephone Directory constituted acceptance of the application, otherwise the application was not binding on either of the parties. There was also an errors and emissions statement that neither D nor the Telephone Company were liable for damages for a failure to include any item of advertising specified in the application and from errors in advertising printed in the directory in excess of the amount paid by the applicant for such advertising. P contends that even though he signed numerous such applications in the past that he was unaware of the provisions on the reverse side of the application. P also contends that the exclusionary clause was never pointed out to him by D’s salesman. P’s advertisement was omitted from the August 1982 telephone directory. P was told that D’s salesman had screwed up and P was not billed for the advertisement. P sued D under breach of contract and negligence. P sought recovery of lost profits. D moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no contract between the parties, D’s liability was limited by the exclusionary clause, and P’s negligence claim was a restatement of his contract claim. The trial court granted D’s motion, and P appealed.