Lian v. Stalick, 115 Wash. App. 590 (2003)
...Stalick’s “failfure] to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition was a violation of the implied warranty of habitability.” CP at 162-63. The RLTA provision relating to habitability partly states:
Showing 1–20 of 57 results
...Stalick’s “failfure] to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition was a violation of the implied warranty of habitability.” CP at 162-63. The RLTA provision relating to habitability partly states:
...Stalick's "fail[ure] to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition was a violation of the implied warranty of habitability." CP at 162-63. The RLTA provision relating to habitability partly states:
and statutory warranty of habitability to Gerlach by failing to repair the rotted
Generally, at common law, a landlord had neither a duty to provide habitable rental property nor a duty to repair rental property. Hughes v. Chehalis Sch. Dist. No. 302, 61 Wn.2d 222, 225, 377 P.2d 642 (1963). This...
...any gratuitous undertaking to repair stairs, or negligent repair of those stairs having undertaken the repair. The court simply concluded that “[b]y not having the steps in a safe condition as a minimum for habitation, the defendants breached their...
...any gratuitous undertaking to repair stairs, or negligent repair of those stairs having undertaken the repair. The court simply concluded that "[b]y not having the steps in a safe condition as a minimum for habitation, the defendants breached their...
Generally, at common law, a landlord had neither a duty to provide habitable rental property nor a duty to repair rental property. Hughes v. Chehalis Sch. Dist. No. 302, 61 Wash.2d 222, 225, 377 P.2d 642 (1963). This...
...who takes possession of premises with known defects, intends to repair those defects, bargains for reduced monthly payments and characterizes the transaction as a “deal” which he “grabbed,” neither deserves nor needs the protection of an implied warranty of habitability.
...who takes possession of premises with known defects, intends to repair those defects, bargains for reduced monthly payments and characterizes the transaction as a "deal" which he "grabbed," neither deserves nor needs the protection of an implied warranty of habitability.
The Bricklers sued Myers for the cost of repairing the various construction defects, and for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Myers stipulated that it had breached the warranty, and the matter came on for jury trial.
...taken possession, if he has failed to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition and the existence of the condition is in violation of. ( 1) an implied warranty of habitability; or (2) a duty created by statute or administrative regulation.
...taken possession, if he has failed to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition and the existence of the condition is in violation of: (1) an implied warranty of habitability; or (2) a duty created by statute or administrative regulation.
...whether (a) an implied warranty of habitability extended to this lease, or (b) were the lessees entitled to vacate the premises because of their condition; and (3) whether the lessees breached the lease by violating the lease clause on repairs.
...Stalick contends the court erred by ruling that he was liable under § 17.6 under a theory of negligent repair and that he breached the implied warranty of habitability under the RLTA.
...Stalick contends the court erred by ruling that he was liable under section 17.6 under a theory of negligent repair and that he breached the implied warranty of habitability under the RLTA.
...possession, if he has failed to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition and the existence of the condition is in violation of: (1) an implied warranty of habitability; or (2) a duty created by statute or administrative regulation. RESTATEMENT...
...opportunity to discover the condition and failed to exercise ordinary care to repair the condition, and (3) that the existence of the condition was a violation of an implied warranty of habitability or a duty created by statute or regulation.
...condition existing before or arising after the tenant has taken possession, if he has failed to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition and the existence of the condition is in violation of: (1) an implied duty of habitability, or
...condition existing before or arising after the tenant has taken possession, if he has failed to exercise reasonable care to repair the condition and the existence of the condition is in violation of: (1) an implied duty of habitability; or
...opportunity to discover the condition and failed to exercise ordinary care to repair the condition, and (3) that the existence of the condition was a violation of an implied warranty of habitability or a duty created by statute or regulation.