Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Citation
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-09-09
Other Sections in This Document (52)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
- Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
Full Text
1,633 charsThat decision was consistent with the national trend in residential leases away from interpretations based on classic property law doctrine that treated leases as “conveyances,” and toward modem notions of leases as contracts for the possession of property, and modern notions of consumer protection. In these respects, it was based on the landmark case of Javins v. First Nat’l Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071, 1078-1079 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 925 (1970), which noted a number of reasons for departing from the common-law rule in residential leases, including (1) the tenant’s shift in interest from the land itself to the buildings on the land; (2) the tenant’s inability to make repairs himself, unlike “the ‘j ack-of-all-trades ’ farmer who was the common law’s model of the lessee”; (3) the lack of incentive for the tenant to make repairs, given the relatively short duration of the lease; (4) the difficulty in repairing complex buildings and the need to access areas under the landlord’s control; and (5) the tenant’s inability to obtain financing for major repairs because “they have no long-term interest in the *718property.” This trend culminated in the almost universally recognized warranty of habitability implied in residential leases. See Vlatas, An Economic Analysis of Implied Warranties of Fitness in Commercial Leases, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 658, 658-659 (1994); Bopp, The Unwarranted Implication of a Warranty of Fitness in Commercial Leases — An Alternative Approach, 41 Vand. L. Rev. 1057, 1057 (1988); Note, Modernizing Commercial Lease Law: The Case for an Implied Warranty of Fitness, supra at 930-931.