implied warranty of habitability

Several tenants rented apartments in Clifton Terrace, a three-building apartment complex in Northwest Washington, by separate written leases with First National Realty Corporation. On April 8, 1968, the landlord filed separate actions in the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the Court of General Sessions seeking possession on the ground that each tenant had defaulted in the payment of rent due for the month of April. The tenants admitted that they had not paid the landlord any rent for April but alleged numerous violations of the Housing Regulations as an equitable defense or claim by way of recoupment or set-off. The tenants offered to prove that there are approximately 1500 violations of the Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia in the building at Clifton Terrace, where the defendant resides, some affecting the premises of the defendant directly, others indirectly, and all tending to establish a course of conduct of violation of the Housing Regulations to the damage of defendants. They conceded at trial that this offer of proof reached only violations which had arisen since the term of the lease had commenced. The Court of General Sessions refused the offer of proof and entered judgment for the landlord. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the argument that the landlord was under a contractual duty to maintain the premises in compliance with the Housing Regulations. Because of the importance of the question presented, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the tenants' petitions for leave to appeal.

In 1966 Essex Group, Inc., a manufacturer of electrical wire products, decided to expand its aluminum wire production and began negotiations with Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) for a long-term supply of aluminum. By December 26, 1967, the parties entered into the Molten Metal Agreement under which Essex would supply alumina to ALCOA, which would smelt it into molten aluminum at its Warrick, Indiana facility for Essex to pick up. The agreement was to run until the end of 1983, with Essex having an option to extend it to 1988. Essex also entered into a separate Alumina Purchase Agreement with Alcoa of Australia Proprietary Ltd. for the supply of alumina. The price under the Molten Metal Agreement was calculated using a formula with three components. A demand charge was indexed to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index. A non-labor production cost component was indexed to the Wholesale Price Index-Industrial Commodities (WPI-IC). A labor production cost component was indexed to ALCOA's average hourly labor costs at Warrick. The initial price was fifteen cents per pound, subject to an overall cap at sixty-five percent of a specified market price for aluminum. ALCOA consulted economist Alan Greenspan in developing the indexing system, and both parties examined the historical performance of the indices before agreeing to them. The parties also executed a Side Letter Agreement addressing concerns under the Robinson-Patman Act, providing that if the agreement were construed as a sale of goods, either party could terminate it. From 1968 through the early 1970s, the price formula produced returns to ALCOA within the expected range of one to seven cents per pound net. Beginning in 1973, following actions by OPEC to increase oil prices and unanticipated pollution control costs, ALCOA's electricity costs at Warrick rose much more rapidly than the WPI-IC. As a result, ALCOA began incurring substantial out-of-pocket losses on the contract, projected to exceed sixty million dollars over the remaining term if unchanged. In June 1979, ALCOA notified Essex that it would reduce deliveries by fifteen percent, and Essex disputed ALCOA's authority to do so under the contract terms. On July 21, 1975, representatives of ALCOA and Essex, including Krome George and Paul O'Malley, met and discussed possible revision of the pricing formula, but the parties dispute whether an oral agreement to modify the contract was reached. In 1977 and 1978, electrical generating plant failures and a coal strike caused interruptions in ALCOA's smelting operations, leading to reduced deliveries to Essex that ALCOA attributed to causes beyond its control. ALCOA filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania seeking reformation of the contract, a declaratory judgment regarding an alleged oral modification and termination rights, while Essex counterclaimed for damages and specific enforcement of the original delivery obligations. The case proceeded to a non-jury trial on liability issues, during which evidence was presented including tables showing the divergence between the WPI-IC and ALCOA's actual non-labor costs, testimony from company officials, and records of contract negotiations and performance. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship with the amount in controversy exceeding the jurisdictional threshold, and the parties agreed that Indiana law governs the contract.

In 1970, Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. obtained a permit from New York City to operate a cable television system in Manhattan. It entered into an agreement with the prior owner of a five-story apartment building at 303 West 105th Street to install cables on the roof in exchange for a flat fee of $50 per year. The installation included a cable slightly less than one-half inch in diameter and approximately 30 feet in length running along the roof about 18 inches above the surface. It also included directional taps measuring approximately 4 inches by 4 inches by 4 inches on the front and rear of the roof. Two large silver boxes were placed along the roof cables. Additional cable was extended another 4 to 6 feet. All components were attached by screws or nails penetrating the masonry at approximately two-foot intervals. In 1971, Jean Loretto purchased the building. At the time of purchase the cable installation was already in place as part of a larger network serving adjacent buildings, though Loretto did not discover its existence until after she took possession. Two years later Teleprompter connected a noncrossover line by dropping a cable down the front of the building to serve Loretto's own tenants. In 1973 the New York Legislature enacted section 828 of the Executive Law, effective January 1, 1973, which prohibited landlords from interfering with cable television installations on their property, barred landlords from demanding payment from tenants for permitting service, and limited any payment from a cable company to an amount the State Commission on Cable Television determined to be reasonable; the Commission later set the presumptive fee at a one-time $1 payment. In 1976 Loretto filed a class action against Teleprompter in New York Supreme Court on behalf of all owners of real property in the state on which Teleprompter had placed cable components, alleging trespass and a taking without just compensation and seeking damages and injunctive relief; the City of New York, which had granted Teleprompter an exclusive franchise for parts of Manhattan, intervened as a defendant. The Supreme Court, Special Term, granted summary judgment to Teleprompter and the city. The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the statute. The Supreme Court of the United States noted probable jurisdiction.

In November 1969 the City Bureau of Buildings declared the single-family residence rented on a month-to-month basis for $100 per month by appellants Donald and Edna Lindsey and other tenants from appellee Normet unfit for habitation because of substandard conditions including rusted gutters, broken windows, broken plaster, missing rear steps, and improper sanitation. The tenants requested repairs which the landlord refused except for one minor item. After paying the November rent they withheld the December rent. On December 15 the landlord's attorney sent a letter threatening court action unless the accrued rent was paid immediately. On January 7, 1970, before any state eviction proceedings had begun, the tenants filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking a declaratory judgment that the Oregon Forcible Entry and Wrongful Detainer Statute, Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 105.105-105.160, was unconstitutional on its face and an injunction against its continued enforcement. A three-judge district court was convened. It issued a temporary restraining order and ordered the tenants to pay rent into an escrow account during the proceeding. The parties entered a lengthy stipulation of facts, submitted exhibits and depositions, and the district court granted the landlord's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Oregon statute established a summary procedure for resolving disputes over possession of real property. Service of the complaint on the tenant must be not less than two nor more than four days before the trial date. A tenant may obtain a two-day continuance, but grant of a longer continuance is conditioned on the tenant's posting security for the payment of any rent that may accrue if the plaintiff ultimately prevails. The suit may be tried to either a judge or a jury, and the only issue is whether the allegations of the complaint are true. A defendant who loses such a suit may appeal only if he obtains two sureties who will provide security for the payment to the plaintiff, if the defendant ultimately loses on appeal, of twice the rental value of the property from the time of commencement of the action to final judgment. The district court upheld the validity of the statutes under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The tenants appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.