Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)

Citation: Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
Parent Document: Matte v. Shippee Auto, Inc., 152 N.H. 216 (2005)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2005-05-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8093024/matte-v-shippee-auto-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,149 chars

We need not reconsider whether to extend the warranty of habitability to commercial leases because Kline v. Burns, 111 N.H. 87, 92 (1971), the decision in which we first recognized an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases, does not support the proposition the defendant would have us apply, namely, that breach of the warranty of habitability allows a tenant to withhold rent and defeat an eviction action. That remedy, as noted previously, was made available to residential tenants by statute and does not apply to commercial tenants. See RSA 540:13-d. In Kline, the landlord had already recovered possession of the premises and that judgment was not at issue on appeal. Kline, 111 N.H. at 88. We stated that “[a]doption of [the implied warranty of habitability] makes available to the tenant the basic contract remedies of damages, reformation, and rescission. The tenant can obtain relief by instituting an *220action for breach of warranty or by offsetting his damages against a claim made against him by the landlord.” Id. at 93 (citation omitted). Thus, we decline to address the defendant’s warranty of habitability argument.

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text