acceptance of the lessee’s surrender of the premises. See, e.g., First Wisconsin Trust Co. v. L. Weimann Co., 93 Wis.2d 258, 286 N.W.M 360 (1980). However, in recent years, New Jersey and other jurisdictions have shown an increasing tendency to analogize landlord-tenant law to conventional doctrines of contract law. See, e.g., Berzito v. Gambino, 63 N.J. 460, 308 A.2d 17 (1973) (implied warranty of habitability and covenant to pay rent construed as mutually dependent); Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130, 265 A.2d 526 (1970) (landlord’s implied covenant to make repairs and tenant’s covenant to pay rent construed as mutually dependent; landlord’s breach of covenant entitles tenant to repair and offset cost against rent); Reste Realty Corp. v. Cooper, 53 N.J. 444, 251 A.2d 268 (1969) (<HOLDING>). In view of that tendency, we think it is more
holding that the rule of caveat emptor would no longer be applicable to the sale of a newly constructed house and recognizing an implied warranty of fitness and habitability with regard to such sales holding the implied warranty is implied in all residential leases in california recognizing implied warranty against latent defects and of fitness of premises for lease purposes holding implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose cannot lie where goods were subject of gift rather than sale holding that where claimant complained of a problem and showed defendant a rusty part the requirement of notice was satisfied for a claim of breach of the warranty of fitness