California Supreme Court Clarifies That A Contractor Cannot Recover Any Compensation For Work Performed That Requires A Contractor's License Unless The Contractor Was Licensed At All Times During The Performance Of The Work
MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental and Metal Works Co.,
30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755 (2005)
The California Supreme Court has clarified the rules under California Business & Professions Code section 7031 regarding an unlicensed contractor's ability to recover compensation for performance of work which requires a contractor's license.
Continue Reading Questions & commentsLicensing
Handyman Connection of Sacramento, Inc. v. Sands
123 Cal. App. 4th 867 (3d Dist Oct. 29, 2004)
Plaintiff contractor appealed trial court judgment affirming Contractors' State License Board decision that plaintiff violated four aspects of Contractors' State License Law related to solicitation and obtaining of a contract to perform home improvement work. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court judgment as to all violations except the charge of using an improper business name.
The court explained that in an administrative mandate case where the only sanction under review is a fine - not revocation, suspension, or restriction of one's license - no fundamental vested right is implicated even though the contractor's violation may be disclosed publicly. In such a case, the trial court may not exercise independent judgment as to administrative findings of fact but must determine only whether substantial evidence supported the administrative findings of fact.
Continue Reading Questions & comments