Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)

Citation
Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)
Parent Document
Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972)
Effective Date
1972-02-23

Other Sections in This Document (263)

Full Text

1,205 chars
*86Affirmative defenses such as the failure of the landlord to make repairs or that the motivation for the eviction was retaliation for a report by the tenant of a violation of a housing code are apparently precluded. This reflects the ancient notion that a lease is a conveyance of an “estate in land,” in which the respective covenants — a tenant’s to pay rent, the landlord’s to repair— were deemed independent of each other. This approach was appropriate in the feudal culture in which property law evolved.12 But this feudal notion of landlord-tenant law — rooted in the special needs of an agrarian society — has not been a realistic approach to *87landlord-tenant law for many years,13 and has been replaced by what eminent authorities have described as “a predominately contractual” analysis of leasehold interests.14 This led Judge Wright in Javins v. First National Realty Corp., 138 U. S. App. D. C., at 373, 428 F. 2d, at 1075, to hold “that leases of urban dwelling units should be interpreted and construed like any other contract.” Oregon takes the same view and treats a lease as a contract. Wright v. Baumann, 239 Ore. 410, 398 P. 2d 119; Eggen v. Wetterborg, 193 Ore. 145, 237 P. 2d 970.