Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)

Citation: Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)
Parent Document: Berish v. Bornstein, 437 Mass. 252 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2002-06-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6578538/berish-v-bornstein/ ↗

Full Text

1,336 chars

The policy reasons that led us to adopt an implied warranty of habitability in the purchase of a new home apply equally to the purchase of a new condominium unit. See Albrecht v. Clifford, supra at 710-712 (implied warranty protects purchasers from structural defects which are nearly impossible to ascertain by inspection after home is built and imposes burden of repairing latent defects on person who has opportunity to notice, avoid, or correct them during construction process). The legal differences between the purchase and ownership of a condominium unit and the purchase and ownership of a house are inconsequential when compared to the similarity of purpose underlying both transactions, i.e., the acquisition of a habitable home. We therefore decide that an implied warranty of habitability attaches to the sale of new residential condominium units by builder-vendors in the Commonwealth, just as it now. applies to the sale of new houses. See Gable v. Silver, 258 So. 2d 11, 18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972) (“implied warranties of fitness and merchantability extend to the purchase of new *264condominiums in Florida from builders”); Pontiere v. James Dinert, Inc., 426 Pa. Super. 576 (1993) (original purchasers of condominium units may bring suit for breach of implied warranty of habitability and workmanlike construction).

Other Sections in This Document (93)

Full Text