DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Kanagaroo Kort
HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Property
*****************************************************
#Post#: 44--------------------------------------------------
Hilder v. St. Peter
By: SunsetSailor Date: January 27, 2011, 10:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RULES:
* In the rental of ay residential swelling unit an implied
warranty exists in the lease, whether oral or written, that the
LL will deliver over and maintain, throughout the period of the
tenancy, premises that are safe, clean and fit for human
habitation. This warranty of the habitability is implied in
tenancies for a specific period or at will. Additionally, the
implied warranty of habitability covers all latent and patent
defects in the essential facilities of the residential unit.
Essential facilities are ‘facilities vital to the use of the
premises for residential purposes. This means that a tenant who
enteres into a lease agreement with knowledge of any defect in
the essential facilities cannot be said to have assumed the
risk, thereby losing the protection of the warranty. Nor can
this implied warranty of habitability be waived by any written
provision in the lease or by oral agreement.
* In determining whether there has been a breach of the
implied warranty of habitability, the courts may first look to
any relevant local or municipal housing code. A substantial
violation of an applicable housing code shall constitute prima
facie evidence that there has been a breach of the warranty of
habitability.
* In determining whether there has been a breach of the
implied warranty of habitability, courts should inquire whether
the claimed defect has an impact on the safety or health of the
tenant.
* In order to bring a cause of action for breach of the
implied warranty of habitability, the T must first show that he
notified the LL of the deficiency or defect not known to the LL
and allowed a reasonable time for its correction.
* The standard contract remedies of rescission, reformation
and damages are available to the T when suing for the breach of
implied warranty of habitability. The measure of damages shall
be the difference b/w the value of the dwelling as warranted and
the value of the dwelling as it exists in its defective
condition.
* Damages should also be allowed for a T’s discomfort and
annoyance arising from the LL’s breach of the implied warranty
of habitability.
* In addition to general damages, punitive damages may be
available to a T in the appropriate case: when a LL, after
receiving notice of a defect, fails to repair the facility that
is essential to the health and safety of his or her tenant, an
award of punitive damages is proper
* When a LL breaches the implied warranty of habitability,
the T may withhold future rent, and may also seek damages in the
amount of rent previously paid.
#Post#: 115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hilder v. St. Peter
By: Nathaniel Date: February 1, 2018, 1:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This information is very helpful to me.
#Post#: 119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hilder v. St. Peter
By: Muyanato Date: April 19, 2018, 9:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking for this information, it's the information I'm
looking for.
#Post#: 124--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hilder v. St. Peter
By: Yodanato Date: May 14, 2018, 1:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with this information and think it is very good
information.
#Post#: 129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hilder v. St. Peter
By: Onimadi Date: May 27, 2018, 11:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Be assured that this information is good for those who are
interested in this.
#Post#: 152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hilder v. St. Peter
By: Radfrod Date: June 4, 2019, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think there will certainly be people interested in this
matter.
*****************************************************