Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
There is no implied warranty that leased premises are fit for the purposes for which they are let. When an action is based on fraudulent concealment, a duty to disclose the truth must be shown. The rule of caveat emptor applies in the relation of landlord and tenant unless material representations constituting fraud are specifically alleged, or there is a showing of a fiduciary relationship between the parties.
Appellees brought the present action against appellant for rent under the terms of a twenty-five year lease of real estate owned by appellees. The lease made no warranty regarding the suitability of the land for appellants' purpose of constructing and operating a drive-in theatre. Appellants filed an amended second paragraph of answer and cross-complaint that alleged facts disclosing fraud that would vitiate the lease. Appellees’ demurrer was sustained. Appellant challenged the judgment.
Under the circumstances, was it an error to sustain appellees’ demurrer?
The court affirmed judgment in favor of appellees, holding that the rule of caveat emptor applied where a lease did not include an implied warranty of suitability and no verbal misrepresentations regarding suitability were made.