Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)

Citation
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Parent Document
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co., 799 P.2d 250 (1990)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1990-11-01

Other Sections in This Document (121)

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: