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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2610918/atherton-condo-apartment-owners... ↗

Full Text

868 chars

[4] Blume relies on language from Stuart which states that the implied warranty of habitability applies only to "egregious defects in the fundamental structure of a home." Stuart, at 416. Blume contends that because Atherton's fire resistivity problems are neither egregious nor structural, the implied warranty is not applicable. We disagree. As noted above, the interpretation of the implied warranty at issue here has been left to a case-by-case basis. In a vacuum, a strongly worded phrase like "egregious defects" could easily be construed as unnecessarily constrictive. However, as is frequently the case in appellate interpretation, applying earlier formulas in a new factual context creates new shading, new shadows. We conclude that the facts of this case clearly demonstrate the wisdom of applying the implied warranty of habitability to these circumstances.

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text