Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Citation
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Parent Document
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 1994-05-12
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
- Cruz Management Co. v. Thomas, 417 Mass. 782 (1994)
Full Text
544 charsAlthough repeated attempts at repair were made, most of the code violations described above were present during the entire time that Cruz Management was responsible for the condition of Thomas’s apartment. The judge assessed damages only for the months of April, 1989, through October, 1990, because Thomas signed an agreement in April, 1989, waiving all claims arising from conditions in the premises prior to that date. The judge found that conditions during the relevant period “were such so as to make the premises of no value to [Thomas].”