Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Muro v. Superior Court, 184 Cal. App. 3d 1089 (1986)

Citation
Muro v. Superior Court, 184 Cal. App. 3d 1089 (1986)
Parent Document
Muro v. Superior Court, 184 Cal. App. 3d 1089 (1986)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1986-08-26

Other Sections in This Document (86)

Full Text

910 chars
But, at the same time, they also implicitly rejected any such extension to a lessor of commercial premises. They pointed out that “[tjhere is no reason to extend the common law implied warranty of habitability to nonresidential premises. This warranty resulted from the necessity of protecting the health and safety of residential tenants who need adequate housing in a marketplace where satisfactory housing is difficult to locate and the tenant is unable to protect himself because of his lack of knowledge, ability and bargaining position. These factors are not present in the leasing of nonresidential premises where the tenant is more sophisticated, his bargaining position is more equal to that of the landlord and, in the usual case, the contents of the lease, including the obligation of maintenance, are negotiated between the parties. [Fns. omitted.]” (4 Miller & Starr, supra, § 27:75, pp. 364-365.)