Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)

Citation: Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Parent Document: Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 1973-10-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1452046/foisy-v-wyman/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (140)

Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Foisy v. Wyman, 515 P.2d 160 (1973)
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 6
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8
Sec. 8

Full Text

533 chars

The primary contention raised by the defendant is that the trial court erred in refusing to accept evidence as to his affirmative defense of breach of implied warranty of habitability. The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s failure to maintain the premises in a habitable condition constitutes a failure of consideration upon the part of the plaintiff and relieves the defendant of his obligation to pay rent. We agree that the tenant should have been permitted to introduce evidence at trial in support of this theory of defense.