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

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: