Section 1941
- Citation
- Section 1941
- Parent Document
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 1981-02-13
Other Sections in This Document (192)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Knight v. Hallsthammar, 623 P.2d 268 (1981)
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1942
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
- Section 1941
Full Text
721 charsUnder Green v. Superior Court, supra, a residential tenant may not be deemed to have exempted a landlord from the implied warranty of habitability by continuing to live in uninhabitable premises, and breach of the warranty does not and should not depend upon a tenant’s lack of knowledge of the conditions which make the premises uninhabitable. Further, in an unlawful detainer action, a tenant’s defense that a landlord has breached an implied warranty of habitability should not depend on whether the landlord has had a “reasonable” time to repair, because the issue is whether the premises are in fact inhabitable. Nor should that defense depend on the fortuitous circumstance of a change in ownership of the premises.