回複：請問房東６周沒修好空調，這裏夏天房子內很熱，能不能棄房而走

基本上如果你們現在搬出你們事違反租約，然而您可以要求房東減免租金 (六周沒有空調所造成的不便)，
所謂
constructive eviction 的定義如下
n. when the landlord does not go through a legal eviction of a tenant but takes steps which keep the tenant from continuing to live in the premises. This could include changing the locks, turning off the drinking water, blocking the driveway, yelling at the tenant all the time or nailing the door shut.

然而您的房東並沒有"故意拒決"修理空調，隻是最近美國異乎尋常的高溫確實造成許多老舊的空調無法負荷，所以您很難說這是房東個人的錯誤，同時如果房東已經修復，您所用的理由就已不存在，所以個人不認為您有一個case可以適用 constructive eviction‧

以下是一篇很好的文章討論這個問題，請特別注意文章最後的結論


http://www.peoples-law.org/housing/ltenant/legal%20info/quiet%20enjoy%20and%20construct%20eviction.htm

(Maryland Code, Real Property, Section 2-115, 8-204)

Tips from the Experts on Constructive Eviction and Noise

Unless the lease provides otherwise, there is an implied warranty or covenant by the landlord that during the term of the tenancy, the tenant is entitled to "quiet enjoyment" of the premises. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has held that even where the disruption to tenant's quiet enjoyment is caused not by the landlord but by another tenant, the disruption may be attributable to the landlord because the landlord could take action (such as notification and, if necessary, eviction) against the offending tenant.

When the landlord fails to correct or terminate the disturbance, and the disturbance seriously interferes with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the leased premises, the tenant is justified in abandoning the premises. Tenant who leaves under these conditions will have no further obligation to pay rent. In the eyes of the law, the landlord has breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and has "constructively evicted" the tenant. Landlord may be required to compensate tenant for moving expenses, attorney's fees, and other expenses resulting from the constructive eviction. (The Court of Special Appeals case is Bocchini v. Gorn Management Co., 69 Md. App.1 (1986).)

NOTE: The facts in Bocchini v. Gorn, mentioned above, were that the landlord knew about the problem and failed to take action against a tenant who persisted over a period of several months in making very disturbing noises and also threatened the complaining tenant after she asked him to modify his behavior and after she asked the landlord for help. The court stated that these facts constituted a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and supported the tenant's claim that she had been constructively evicted.

We suggest that a tenant who finds that his use and enjoyment of the premises are seriously impaired by the landlord or by another tenant, should communicate the problem to the landlord in writing, give the landlord reasonable opportunity to resolve the situation, and have witnesses to the situation, if possible.

If all efforts fail, if the disturbance persists and tenant decides to move out before the end of the lease term, there is still a risk to tenant that the landlord will file suit for loss of the rent due for the remainder of the lease term. For tenant to prevail, tenant will need to prove to the court that the disturbance was substantial enough to constitute "constructive eviction