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

893 chars

[6] Although the implied warranty of habitability does not extend to "mere defects in workmanship" or impose upon a builder-vendor an obligation to construct a perfect residential dwelling,[8]Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Comm'l Group, Inc., 109 Wn.2d 406, 417, 745 P.2d 1284 (1987); accord, Klos v. Gockel, 87 Wn.2d 567, 571-72, 554 P.2d 1349 (1976), the alleged defects in this case are not "mere defects in workmanship." The alleged building code violations are neither trivial nor aesthetic concerns, nor those involving procedural breaches.[9] Rather, the alleged building code violations concern fundamental fire safety provisions regarding the construction of Atherton's floors and ceilings. As such, the alleged defects are within the purview of the implied warranty of habitability and should not have been dismissed on summary judgment as a matter of law.[10] *523 Fraudulent Concealment

Other Sections in This Document (121)

Full Text