Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Citation
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-01-10
Other Sections in This Document (28)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
- Lawrence v. Osuagwu, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 60 (2003)
Full Text
888 charsThe statute has been amended several times with apparent care in regard to the particular language used. In 1977, the Legislature amended G. L. c. 239, § 8A. Specifically, in the first paragraph of the statute, the Legislature omitted “if such premises are in violation of the standards of fitness for human habitation,” id., as amended through St. 1974, c. 269, § 1, and substituted “any claim against the plaintiff ... for breach of warranty, for a breach of any material provision of the rental agreement, or for a violation of any other law.” Id., as amended by St. 1977, c. 963. The omission from the statute of the language limiting defenses to those related to the physical condition of the premises is striking, especially in light of the sweeping language that was substituted. Cf. Rodriquez v. Superintendent, Northeastern Correctional Center, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 481, 484 (1987).