| Court: | WI Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Perssion is landlord to some students. He has an embarrassingly
bad house which he says he'll rent to them. There is dispute
about whether or not he said he'd fix the place up prior to
signing a lease and deposit.
Nevertheless, a lease gets signed, and a deposit paid. Nothing is done by move-in time, and the place is a disaster. The tenants tried to clean up and paint, but then they got sick of it. The building inspector was called, and several code violations were found, including bad wiring, bad furnace, bad screens, etc. Plaintiffs vacate. |
| Posture: | Trial court concluded that the defendant had represented that the house would be habitable, and it was not, so the plaintiffs are not liable for rent. |
| Issue: | Was there an implied warranty, and if so, what is the remedy for breach? |
| Holding: | There was; remand to figure out the remedy on the basis of what reasonable rent would have been. |
| Rule: | Wis. Stat. § 704.07(4): landlord's duties of repair. |
| Reasoning: | No parol evidence (re: representations about conditions on repairs) can vary the contract. Landlords have duties. |
| Dicta: | Caveat emptor is "an obnoxious legal cliche." |