Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 3

Citation
§ 3
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

1,000 chars
10 Cal.3d at page 627, the Supreme Court observed: “In most significant respects, the modern urban tenant is in the same position as any other normal consumer of goods. [Citation.] Through a residential lease, a tenant seeks to purchase ‘housing’ from his landlord for a specified period of time. The landlord ‘sells’ housing, enjoying a much greater opportunity, incentive and capacity than a tenant to inspect and maintain the condition of his apartment building. A tenant may reasonably expect that the product he is purchasing is fit for the purpose for which it is obtained, that is, a living unit. Moreover, since a lease contract specifies a designated period of time during which the tenant has a right to inhabit the premises, the tenant may legitimately expect that the premises will be fit for such habitation for the duration of the term of the lease. It is just such reasonable expectations of consumers which the modern ‘implied warranty’ decisions endow with formal, legal protection.”