Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)

Citation
Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985) (5)
Parent Document
Becker v. IRM Corp., 698 P.2d 116 (1985)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1985-04-29

Other Sections in This Document (238)

Full Text

798 chars
(5) Absent disclosure of defects, the landlord in renting the premises makes an implied representation that the premises are fit for use as a dwelling and the representation is ordinarily indispensable to the lease. (Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co., supra, 12 Cal.3d 374, 377-380.) The tenant purchasing housing for a limited period is in no position to inspect for latent defects in the increasingly complex modern apartment buildings or to bear the expense of repair whereas the landlord is in a much better position to inspect for and repair latent defects. (Green v. Superior Court, supra, 10 *465 Cal.3d at p. 626.) The tenant's ability to inspect is ordinarily substantially less than that of a purchaser of the property. (Cf. Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co., supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 379.)