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
1,110 charsIn House v. Thornton, 76 Wn.2d 428, 457 P.2d 199 (1969), *28we rejected the doctrine of caveat emptor as it applied to the sale of a new residence and found an implied warranty that the structure is fit for the buyer’s intended purpose. In doing so, we noted that the old rule of caveat emptor has little relevance to the sale of a brand-new house by a vendor-builder to a first buyer for the purposes of occupancy. By analogy, the old rule of caveat emptor has little relevance to the renting of premises in our society. There can be little justification for following a rule that was developed for an agrarian society and has failed to keep pace with modern day realities. We therefore hold that in all contracts for the renting of premises, oral or written, there is an implied warranty of habitability and breach of this warranty constitutes a defense in an unlawful detainer action. See Javins v. First Nat’l Realty Corp., supra; Lund v. MacArthur, 51 Hawaii 473, 462 P.2d 482 (1969); Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130, 265 A.2d 526 (1970); Jack Spring, Inc. v. Little, 50 Ill. 2d 351, 280 N.E.2d 208 (1972).