menu close menu


Unlicensed Contractor Agreement

Under California law, contractors must maintain a valid license for the duration of construction. If the construction company that employs the contractor wishes to obtain a valid licence, it must qualify for such a licence either by a ”responsible senior officer” or by a ”responsible senior manager”. These people are referred to as ”qualifiers”. If such a qualifier separates from the company, the company has 90 days to replace the qualifier, failing which the company`s license will be suspended. As we have already warned, anyone who subtracts contracts in the state of Florida must take all necessary steps to ensure that there is a correct license before even offering to work that require a license. The costs, dangers and penalties associated with unauthorized contracts can be serious and any possibility of being paid for the work provided is inaccessible if you do not. Your TM construction law firm remains at your disposal to ensure compliance with state licensing legislation. It is never a good practice to use an unlicensed contractor. Before entering into a construction contract, visit the California Contractors State License Board`s website in You can verify a holder`s license using the license number, the name of the contractor or the owners/executives of the construction company. On the site you will find the name and address of the contractor, the nature of the business (i.e. Company, limited liability company, sole proprietorship), the contractor`s license(s), the amount and issuer of the contractor`s license obligation, the worker`s indemnity and the company`s executives/owners. If you authorize work to be performed by an unlicensed contractor, your landlord`s insurance policy may also be invalidated if that work gives rise to a right.

When he came to this conclusion, the Florida Supreme Court explained the difference between pari delicto and only in delicto. The Court stated that the Pari delicto required the contracting parties to be relatively equal. T&G had defended Earth Trades` claim by claiming that T&G knew that Earth Trades was not licensed and therefore should not be able to enforce the contract between them. Therefore, the court recognized that T&G was also an evildoer. However, the General Court stated that the penalties imposed on the unlicensed contractor were more severe than those imposed on T&G for becoming aware of such unauthorized activity. The court went on to find that amendments to section 489.128 of the 2003 Florida Statutes removed the language making contracts with unlicensed contractors enforceable by either party, and instead stated that only the unlicensed contractor was excluded from the application of such contracts. As a result, the court ruled that ”T&G`s alleged knowledge of Earth Trades` licensing status, if proven, would make both parties criminals, but they would not share substantially the same culpability. As a result, they are not in pari delicto. T&G would be in delicto, but not in pari delicto, and as a result, T&G would not be of the same fault to prevent T&G from imposing the contract with the unlicensed Earth Trades. In its decision, the Court of Appeal made two essential distinctions with respect to the applicability of a contract with an unlicensed contractor. First, the Court of Appeals ruled that the California Business & Professions Code § 7031(a), which expressly prohibits a contractor`s remedy (and arbitration) for the recovery of compensation for unlicensed work, did not preclude legal action by a contractor who was not licensed at the time the contract was entered into, but who was authorized during the performance of the work. In support of this critical distinction, the Court concluded that ”the act implementing an agreement is not an act for which a contractor seeks compensation; on the contrary, it follows the remuneration for the satisfactory performance of the contract. Therefore, Section 7031(a) is merely a blockage for a contractor who is not permitted during the performance of the contract. .

. .


Comments are closed.