Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)

Citation: Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Parent Document: Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2001-07-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2256171/fairchild-v-park/ ↗

Full Text

1,087 chars

As our Supreme Court has stated: “A covenant to repair on the part of the lessor and a covenant to pay rent on the part of a lessee are usually considered as independent covenants, and unless the covenant to repair is expressly or impliedly made a condition precedent to the covenant to pay rent, the breach of the former does not justify the refusal on the part of the lessee to perform the latter.” (Arnold v. Krigbaum (1915) 169 Cal. 143, 145 [146 P. 423], overruled on another point in Green, supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 622-623.) And as the high court later clarified: “[C]ovenants in leases are independent or dependent according to the nature of the obligations, their relation to each other, the intention of the parties as shown by the provisions of the governing lease, and the factual situation of each particular case . . . .” (Medico-Dental etc. Co. v. Horton & Converse (1942) 21 Cal.2d 411, 424 [132 P.2d 457].) Here, the landlord does not contend that the *928implied covenant of habitability was expressly or impliedly made a condition precedent to the covenant to pay rent.

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text