King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)

Citation: King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)
Parent Document: King v. Moorehead, 495 S.W.2d 65 (1973)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1973-04-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1683367/king-v-moorehead/ ↗

Full Text

780 chars

In recent years those courts which have considered the question have uniformly rejected the applicability of caveat emptor to residential leases and have implied a warranty of habitability and fitness for use of the premises on principles of contract law.[11] The warranty is the implied effect intended by the parties to the lease agreement. Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130, 265 A. 2d 526, 533 [15] (1970). "It affirms the fact that a lease is, in essence, a sale as well as a transfer of an estate in land and is, more important, a contractual relationship." Lemle v. Breeden, 51 Haw. 426, 462 P.2d 470, 474 [1-3] (1969); Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, 138 U.S. App.D.C. 369, 428 F.2d 1071 (1970); Jack Spring, Inc. v. Little, 50 Ill.2d 351, 280 N. E.2d 208 (1972).

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text