Does the majority of the California Court of Appeal agree that a landlord makes a written representation that the premises is fit for use as a dwelling?

The majority has focused on the wrong thing. (See dis. opn. at pp. 113-114.) It has now re-cast its description of this ground for holding landlords strictly liable in tort, exclusively emphasizing the making of representations "in leases," as if that is the only way representations about the condition of premises are made. The critical point made by the Becker court was, however, that the landlord makes implied representations that the premises are fit for use as a dwelling. (Becker v. IRM Corp., supra 38 Cal.3d[22 Cal.App.4th 796] 454, [22 Cal.App.4th 677] 464, 213 Cal.Rptr. 213, 698 P.2d 116.) The implied representation or warranty of habitability is made whether or not a written lease is used.