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

427 chars 
In the present case, the trial court dismissed Owners' claim, as a matter of law, because the claim did "not fall within the limited sphere of the warranty of habitability". Both the Court of Appeals and Blume rely on Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Comm'l Group, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 406, 745 P.2d 1284 (1987) to support their restrictive interpretations of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court of Appeals reasoned as follows: