If premises be let for the purposes of occupation, it is on an implied condition that they should be fit for occupation.
Citations:
[1842] EngR 1137, (1842) Car and M 479, (1842) 174 ER 598
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Wilson v Lord Finch Hatton CExC 1877
It was said that the premises had previously been occupied by someone with measles and were therefore not fit for human habitation.
Held: A term of fitness for occupation was implied into a lease of furnished premises at its commencement and . .
See Also – Smith v Marrable, Knt ExP 14-Jan-1843
Premises were let furnished with the tenant paying a weekly rent of eight guineas. The tenant complained that the premises were unfit, being infested with bugs, and left. The landlord sued for his rent.
Held: As an exception to the general . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Housing
Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.308092
