Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Section 33250

Citation
Section 33250
Parent Document
Green v. Superior Court, 517 P.2d 1168 (1974)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1974-01-15

Other Sections in This Document (186)

Full Text

798 chars
(1892) 156 Mass. 348, 350 [31 N.E. 286]) the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts explained why the traditional no warranty of habitability rule did not apply to such rentals: “[T]here are good reasons why a different rule should apply to one who hires a furnished room, or a furnished house .... Its fitness for immediate use ... is a far more important element entering into the contract than when there is a mere lease of real estate. . . . An important part of what the hirer pays for is the opportunity to enjoy it without delay, and without the expense of preparing it for use. It is very difficult, and often impossible, for one to determine on inspection whether the house and its appointments are fit for the use for which they are immediately wanted, and the doctrine of caveat emptor,