Plaintiff relies on Davidow v. Inwood North Professional Group in its memorandum. That case involved a doctor who leased space in a building. Davidow v. Inwood, 747 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. 1988). However, unlike the case at bar, the tenant signed a five-year lease with express terms specifying the obligation of the landlord to provide certain services. Id. at 374. The tenant experienced significant problems relating some of the express promises made by the landlord including an infestation by rodents, water leaks, defective air conditioning, crime, vandalism, trash, maintenance, and electricity. Id. at 374-75. The court did conclude that there was an implied warranty of habitability in commercial leases. Id. at 377. The court explained that this means that at the inception of the lease the premises are suitable for their intended commercial purpose. Id. The basis for the holding in Davidow is at odds with the cautious approach outlined by the Supreme Judicial Court in the Humprey case, 447 Mass. at 330. Even if there was a lease in this case, the facts of the case at bar are distinguished from Davidow. There is no basis in our caselaw to extend the holding in Davidow to a case such as this.