EHouse Development LLC v Sanford Lam. Ehouse appeals the trial court’s ruling, after a bench trial, in Lam’s favor regarding a contract dispute involving the terms of a purchase and sale agreement. Ehouse claimed breach of contract and unjust enrichment for Lam’s failure to return a $200,000 earnest money deposit. Lam countered that Ehouse is estopped from seeking recovery due to Ehouse’s waiver of the feasibility contingency that required return of the deposit. COA #844067. King County Superior Court #21-2-03830-8.
Division 1 Court of Appeals
