Wolfberg v. Hunter
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
432 N.E.2d 467 (1982)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
William and Jill Hunter (defendants) rented an apartment from Stephen Wolfberg (plaintiff). In September 1978, the Hunters told Wolfberg that their apartment had mice. The problem continued for five months. In November 1978, the Hunters told Wolfberg they would not pay rent until the mice were gone. The Hunters did not pay rent for three months. Wolfberg sued the Hunters to recover the unpaid rent. The Hunters sued Wolfberg for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The trial court ruled in favor of the Hunters. The trial court initially calculated the Hunters’ damages as: (1) the agreed rent for a rodent-free apartment over the five months, minus (2) what the rent should have been during those five months for a mouse-infested apartment, plus (3) the Hunters’ costs to fix the problem. Wolfberg did not challenge this formula, but Wolfberg did ask the trial court to prevent the Hunters from recovering damages for the three months they withheld rent. Wolfberg’s calculation would only look at the two months in which the Hunters both had mice and paid rent. The trial court agreed that the Hunters should not get any damages for the three months they withheld rent. Both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lynch, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.