Sales—A Comparison of the Law in Washington and the Uniform Commercial Code (Part V)

The final part of this five-part article, resuming with section 2-701, Remedies for Breach of Collateral Contracts Not Impaired

The Careful Scholarship of Justice Charles Horowitz

How appropriately the editors of this review have elected to dedicate some of its pages to honor a distinguished lawyer and judge whose legal career has closely paralleled the history of the publication itself. The name of Charles Horowitz appears on the masthead of the first two volumes, first as member and then as president of its editorial board. In later years, he has written for the Review, citing and analyzing decisions of the courts on which he later sat. That other Review authors have not always agreed with him will neither shock, wound, nor surprise him. After all, the initials C.H., matching no other student\u27s name on the Review\u27s masthead at the time, identify the author of two notes in the volume for which he served as president of the board, and the conclusion reached in both is that the court arrived at an erroneous decision. There is no reason to believe that after years of experience in practice and on the bench, he would deal differently with a legal opinion. There is, however, reason to believe that at the time he was in law school, he could not have foreseen the types of problems with which he was later forced to come to grips as a judge on this state\u27s court of appeals and supreme court

Crime Compensation

Washington has adopted a system of compensation for innocent victims of crimes, the eleventh state to do so. The principal characteristic which distinguishes the new Washington Act from other present and proposed programs is the connection between it and Industrial Insurance, more commonly known as Workmen\u27s Compensation. This connection has at least three significant consequences: (1) Because the victim is equated with an on-the-job injured employee, the amount of an individual\u27s award is geared to the amount an injured workman or dependents of a deceased workman would receive; (2) the administration of the new program is assigned to the Department of Labor and Industries; (3) the procedures for compensating crime victims, including a modified judicial review, generally will follow those procedures established for settling Industrial Insurance claims

Professor Rombauer as Friend and Colleague

Professor Marjorie Dick Rombauer has been associated with the University of Washington School of Law since her student days, when she earned recognition as the Honor Graduate in Law. She served as Casenote Survey Editor for this Law Review and was, of course, elected to the Order of the Coif. Her exceptional abilities and dedication to hard work were the bases for her becoming an instructor in legal research and writing beginning in September of 1960, her graduation year. Her newly acquired faculty colleagues welcomed her with great respect. Even so, her quiet dignity and unassuming demeanor may have caused those of us who know her best as colleague and friend to underestimate all she has done for the law school, for her students, and for the legal profession

Sales—A Comparison of the Law in Washington and the Uniform Commercial Code (Part III)

A continuation of the article, this piece begins with section 2-312, Warranty of Title and Against Infringement; Buyer\u27s Obligation Against Infringement

The Careful Scholarship of Justice Charles Horowitz

How appropriately the editors of this review have elected to dedicate some of its pages to honor a distinguished lawyer and judge whose legal career has closely paralleled the history of the publication itself. The name of Charles Horowitz appears on the masthead of the first two volumes, first as member and then as president of its editorial board. In later years, he has written for the Review, citing and analyzing decisions of the courts on which he later sat. That other Review authors have not always agreed with him will neither shock, wound, nor surprise him. After all, the initials C.H., matching no other student\u27s name on the Review\u27s masthead at the time, identify the author of two notes in the volume for which he served as president of the board, and the conclusion reached in both is that the court arrived at an erroneous decision. There is no reason to believe that after years of experience in practice and on the bench, he would deal differently with a legal opinion. There is, however, reason to believe that at the time he was in law school, he could not have foreseen the types of problems with which he was later forced to come to grips as a judge on this state\u27s court of appeals and supreme court