Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)

Citation: Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)
Parent Document: Peterson v. Superior Court, 899 P.2d 905 (1995)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1995-08-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1360581/peterson-v-superior-court/ ↗

Full Text

1,098 chars

10 Cal.3d 616, 619.) The rationale behind judicial recognition of an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases has been explained by one commentator as follows: “In the 1960s and 1970s nearly all states imposed on landlords an obligation to maintain the habitability of leased premises. One of many reasons for the adoption of this obligation was that economic changes had rendered the old rule of caveat emptor inappropriate. . . . The doctrine [of caveat emptor] arose out of an agrarian economy in which landlords and tenants typically had equal skills in inspecting and repairing property. Because leases largely covered farmland, the value of the structures on the land was of secondary importance. In the opinion of early courts, a lease was viewed most accurately as a conveyance of property from one party to another. Today, by contrast, a residential lease typically involves a bundle of goods and services and envisions a continuing relationship between the landlord and tenant. For the typical tenant, the apartment or house being leased is far more important than the land.

Other Sections in This Document (225)

Full Text