Legal Opinion

Beall v. Inskip

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County

Decided October 23, 1987No. 87-S-397PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

KUHN, J.,

The sole issue remaining from defendant’s preliminary objections is a demurrer to count IV concerning whether a reconditioner-vendor impliedly warrants a residence he reconditions to be habitable. Taking the allegations of the complaint as true, it appears that on December 6, 1985, defendant, a licensed real estate broker who purchases, reconditions, and resells real estate, purchased lot no. 160, section A, Chamita, from the Farmers Home Administration. The real estate was improved with a residence which defendant, by terms of the deed, was required to make “structurally sound and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. ELDERKIN Et Ux. v. GasterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. Licciardi v. PascarellaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1983

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API