DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)

Citation
Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Parent Document
Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co., 115 Wash. 2d 506 (1990)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1990-11-01
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5106834/atherton-condominium-apartment-... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text

433 chars 
In the sale of new residential dwellings, the doctrine of caveat emptor has properly been eroded by the winds of contemporary realities. See generally McDonald v. Mianecki, 79 N.J. 275, 283-91, 398 A.2d 1283 (1979); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554, 557-62 (Tex. 1968). The fictional foundation of the doctrine was aptly dispelled in Chandler v. Madsen, 197 Mont. 234, 642 P.2d 1028 (1982), where the Montana Supreme Court explained: