- 22 -
Cascade was an undercapitalized startup company at the time
it was delinquent in its payments to Lea. The officers'
decisions enabled the corporation to establish its presence in
and to secure a share of a rapidly expanding market at the cost
of paying more over time for the essential patents. Considering
all the facts and circumstances, we are not disposed to second
guess these decisions of Cascade's management. See id.
Written Notice
Furthermore, we find that Lea's failure to provide 60 days'
written notice, specifying the default complained of, is without
consequence. It is clear from the corporate minutes that the
officers had actual notice of the default, and that Lea allowed
Cascade many days more than 60 to cure its default, which it did
not do. It is also clear that the requirement that written
notice be provided was waived by the actions of both parties.
See Eggers v. Luster, 200 P.2d 520, 523 (Wash. 1948); Kelly
Springfield Tire Co. v. Faulkner, 71 P.2d 382, 384 (Wash. 1937);
Barbo v. Norris, 245 P. 414, 417 (Wash. 1926); Consolidated Elec.
Distrib., Inc. v. Gier, 602 P.2d 1206, 1210 (Wash. Ct. App.
1979).
New Consideration
Respondent contends that the 1982 agreement is not valid
because Lea provided no new consideration for the contract
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011