Gifford v. Sears, 19 Mass. L. Rptr. 716 (2005)

Citation: Gifford v. Sears, 19 Mass. L. Rptr. 716 (2005)
Parent Document: Gifford v. Sears, 19 Mass. L. Rptr. 716 (2005)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2005-08-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8355893/gifford-v-sears/ ↗

Full Text

1,350 chars

The implied warranty of habitability “is concerned with the provision, maintenance, and repair of the physical facilities vital to the use of the leased premises.” McAllister v. Boston Housing Authority, 429 Mass. 302, 305 (1999). About three decades ago, the Court rejected the old common-law conception of the lease as a property transaction and embraced the view which recognizes that a lease is essentially a contract between the landlord and the tenant. Boston Housing Authority v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 198 (1973). In this contract, the landlord promises to deliver and maintain the demised premises in habitable condition and the tenant promises to pay rent for such habitable premises. Hemingway, 363 Mass, at 198. More specifically, through this implicit agreement, the landlord promises, with respect to minimum standards prescribed by laws and regulations such as the State Sanitary Code, “(i) that the rented unit complied with such standards at the time of the renting, and (ii) that he will do whatever such laws, regulations or Codes require a landlord to do for compliance with such standards during the terms of the renting.” Hemingway, 363 Mass, at 218. Liability for personal injuries, as well as economic compensation, is imposed upon landowners for breach of the warranty. See Crowell v. McCaffrey, 377 Mass. 443, 447 (1979).

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text