Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)

Citation: Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)
Parent Document: Meadowbrook Condominium Ass'n v. South Burlington Realty Corp., 565 A.2d 238 (1989)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 1989-06-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1561260/meadowbrook-condominium-assn-v-... ↗

Full Text

1,027 chars

This argument obfuscates the distinction between the two warranties recognized in Rothberg: the warranty of habitability and the warranty of good workmanship. The cases cited by defendant illustrate this distinction. The primary authority SBRC relies upon in its brief, for example, is quoted without regard to context. It is true that, in Aronsohn v. Mandara, 98 N.J. 92, 484 A.2d 675 (1984), the high court of New Jersey held that a defective patio was not actionable under a theory of implied warranty of habitability, reasoning that the defect alleged did not affect the essential habitability of the home. Id. at 103-05, 484 A.2d at 681-82. But the court proceeded to remand the case for a new trial on the question whether the implied warranty of good workmanship had been breached. Id. at 106-07, 484 A.2d at 683. Thus, the case stands in direct contradiction to defendant's assertion that peripheral defects must affect the habitability of the dwelling in order to come under the umbrella of an implied warranty theory.

Other Sections in This Document (98)

Full Text