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

1,259 chars

However, not every violation of the State Sanitary Code results in a breach of warranty. McAllister, 429 Mass, at 205. “The State Sanitary Code’s minimum standards of fitness for human habitation and any relevant local health regulations provide the trial court with the threshold requirements that all housing must meet. Proof of any violation of these regulations would usually constitute compelling evidence that the apartment was not in habitable condition. However, the protection afforded by the implied warranty of habitability does not necessarily coincide with the Code’s requirements. There may be instances where conditions not covered by the Code regulations render the apartment uninhabitable ... On the other hand, there may be instances of isolated Code violations which may not warrant a decision that the premises are uninhabitable.” Hemingway, 363 Mass, at 200-01. Whether the condition of the staircase and/or particular State Building Code violations make the premises “uninhabitable” and constitute a breach is a question for the jury, and the defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (“The existence of a material breach of the warranty is a question of fact to be determined by circumstances of each case”). ORDER

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text