Legal Opinion · Dissent

Frickel v. Sunnyside Enterprises, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 18, 1986No. 51614-6Published

1DissentPearson, J.

(dissenting) — The majority holds that the warranty of habitability does not apply to the Frickel-Sunnyside transaction, apparently because (1) the apartment complex was not built for resale, (2) the buyers were seeking a commercial investment, and (3) they failed to seek expert advice to determine the existence of structural deficiencies. Regardless, according to the majority, any potential warranty liability was effectively disclaimed by contractual disclaimer. I must dissent.

Introduction

This court previously has recognized only one of the three reasons offered by the majority to justify…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Oates v. Jag, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Petersen v. Hubschman Construction Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Carpenter v. DonohoeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1964
  4. Barnes v. Mac Brown and Company, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1976
  5. McDonald v. MianeckiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API