747 S.W.2d 373 (1988)
Petitioner leased space from respondent for use as a medical office. After entering the premises, petitioner discovered a number of problems, including a leaking roof, pest and rodent infestation, and respondent's failure to pay electric bills. Petitioner moved out and stopped paying rent. Respondent sued to recover unpaid rent, and petitioner answered that respondent had breached an implied warranty that the leased premises were suitable for use as a medical office, thus excusing petitioner from further rent payments.
The trial court entered judgment in defendant's favor, which was reversed by the court of appeals.
- The state supreme court reversed, concluding petitioner was not liable for unpaid rent.
- It held there was an implied warranty of suitability by respondent in the commercial lease that the premises were suitable for their intended commercial purpose.
- Moreover, petitioner's obligation to pay rent was mutually dependent on, not independent of, respondent's implied warranty.
Judgment reversed, as there was implied warranty by respondent in commercial lease that the premises were suitable for their intended commercial purpose. In addition, obligation to pay rent was mutually dependent on warranty, so breach by respondent excused further rent payments by petitioner.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.