caveat emptor doctrine in Pennsylvania

1980In Pugh v. Holmes, 253 Pa. Superior Ct. 76 , 384 A. 2d 1234 (1978), the Superior Court abolished the common law doctrine of caveat emptor as it applied to residential leases and held that an implied warranty of habitability existed in all such leases.

1980In Pugh v. Holmes, 253 Pa. Superior Ct. 76 , 384 A. 2d 1234 (1978), the Superior Court abolished the common law doctrine of caveat emptor as it applied to residential leases and held that an implied warranty of habitability existed in all such leases.

1974It does a disservice not only to the ordinary prudent purchaser but to the industry itself. . . .’ “In Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, 110 U.S. 108 , 28 L.

1974It does a disservice not only to the ordinary prudent purchaser but to the industry itself. . . .’ “In Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, 110 U.S. 108 , 28 L.

2004In Pugh v. Holmes, 486 Pa. 272 , 405 A.2d 897 (1979), our Supreme Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in private residential leases 15 to keep up with the realities of modern day leasing and did away with the previously followed doctrine of caveat emptor. 16 It viewed private residential leases as contracts that were entitled to the benefits of a warranty of habitability based on the change in the landlord-tenant relationship.

2004In Pugh v. Holmes, 486 Pa. 272 , 405 A.2d 897 (1979), our Supreme Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in private residential leases 15 to keep up with the realities of modern day leasing and did away with the previously followed doctrine of caveat emptor. 16 It viewed private residential leases as contracts that were entitled to the benefits of a warranty of habitability based on the change in the landlord-tenant relationship.

1998Therefore, the doctrine of caveat emptor applied. . 111 Pa.Cmwlth. 73 , 533 A.2d 491 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987), rev’d, 522 Pa. 230 , 560 A.2d 1388 (1989).

1998Therefore, the doctrine of caveat emptor applied. . 111 Pa.Cmwlth. 73 , 533 A.2d 491 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987), rev’d, 522 Pa. 230 , 560 A.2d 1388 (1989).

1998Therefore, the doctrine of caveat emptor applied. . 111 Pa.Cmwlth. 73 , 533 A.2d 491 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987), rev’d, 522 Pa. 230 , 560 A.2d 1388 (1989).

1998Therefore, the doctrine of caveat emptor applied. . 111 Pa.Cmwlth. 73 , 533 A.2d 491 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987), rev’d, 522 Pa. 230 , 560 A.2d 1388 (1989).

1998Frey v. Beaver County Tax Claim Bureau, 687 A.2d 57 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). 4 Based upon this doctrine, the Bureau argues that the McCloskeys were not entitled to the refund of their bid price.

1992Whatever may be the current validity of the doctrine of caveat emptor, it is clear that the modem practice is to require full and fair disclosure of known dangerous defects by a seller of real estate: Smith v. Renaut, 387 Pa. Super. 299 , 564 A.2d 188 (1989).

1992Whatever may be the current validity of the doctrine of caveat emptor, it is clear that the modem practice is to require full and fair disclosure of known dangerous defects by a seller of real estate: Smith v. Renaut, 387 Pa. Super. 299 , 564 A.2d 188 (1989).

1980In Fair v. Negley, 257 Pa. Superior Ct. 50 , 390 A. 2d 240 (1978), the Superior Court held that the implied warranty of habitability could not be waived by a tenant where the bargaining power between landlord and tenant was unequal.

1980In Fair v. Negley, 257 Pa. Superior Ct. 50 , 390 A. 2d 240 (1978), the Superior Court held that the implied warranty of habitability could not be waived by a tenant where the bargaining power between landlord and tenant was unequal.

1974Buyers of mass produced development homes are not on an equal footing with the builder-vendors and are no more able to protect themselves in the deed than are automobile purchasers in a position to protect themselves in the bill of sale.’ Similarly, the Supreme Court of Texas in Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d at 562 concluded: ‘The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home buying practices.

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. 11 See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. [11] See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. 11 See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. [11] See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. 11 See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. [11] See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. 11 See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. [11] See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. 11 See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. 11 See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. 11 See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Generally speaking, the rule is that in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation a vendor is responsible for the quality of the property being sold by him only to the extent for which he expressly agrees to be responsible. [11] See, e.g., Wolf v. Christman, 202 Pa. 475 , 51 Atl. 1102 (1902); Pringle v. Rogers, 193 Pa. 94 , 44 Atl. 275 (1899); Shisler v. Baxter, 109 Pa. 443 (1885); Lord v. Grow, 39 Pa. 88 (1861); Bailey v. Gibson, 20 Pa. Superior Ct. 429 (1902).

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Wawak v. Stewart, 247 Ark. 1093 , 449 S. W. 2d 922 (1970); Bethlahmy v. Bechtel, 91 Idaho 55 , 415 P. 2d 698 (1966) ; Weeks v. Slavick Builders, Inc., 24 Mich. App. 621 , 180 N.W. 2d 503 , aff’d, 384 Mich. 257 , 181 N.W. 2d 271 (1970); Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 44 N.J. 70 , 207 A. 2d 314 (1965); Rutledge v. Dodenhoff, 254 S.C. 407 , 175 S.E. 2d 792 (1970); Waggoner v. Midwestern Development, Inc., 83 S.D. 57 , 154 N.W. 2d 803 (1967); Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d 554 (Tex. 1968); Rothberg v. Olenik, 128 Vt. 295 , 262 A. 2d 461 (1970) ; House v. Thornton, 76 Wash. 2d 428 , 457 P. 2d 199

1972Buyers of mass produced development homes are not on an equal footing with the builder-vendors and are no more able to protect themselves in the deed than are automobile purchasers in a position to protect themselves in the bill of sale.” Similarly, the Supreme Court of Texas in Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d at 562 concluded: “The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home buying practices.

1972Caveat emptor developed when the buyer and seller were in an equal bargaining position and they could readily be expected to protect themselves in the deed. *128 Buyers of mass produced development homes are not on an equal footing with the builder-vendors and are no more able to protect themselves in the deed than are automobile purchasers in a position to protect themselves in the bill of sale." Similarly, the Supreme Court of Texas in Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W. 2d at 562 concluded: "The caveat emptor rule as applied to new houses is an anachronism patently out of harmony with modern home bu