• HOME
  • SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
  • PROFILE
  • ALLEN MATKINS
  • CONTACT
Print Email Shortlink

Contract With Unlicensed Contractor Is Not Void Ab Initio

By Keith Paul Bishop on August 22, 2011 in California Sui Generis

California Business & Professions Code § 7031(a) generally prohibits unlicensed contractors from getting paid on contracts for which a contractor’s license is required.  If an unlicensed contractor enters into a contract providing for arbitration, does the ban on payment render the entire contract, including the arbitration provision illegal and unenforceable?

In Templo Calvario Spanish Assembly of God v. Gardner Construction Corp., a congregation entered into a contract with an unlicensed contractor to build a church.  When a dispute arose, the parties entered into arbitration pursuant to the contract.  The arbitrator, invoking § 7031, required the contractor to disgorge the payments that it had received.  When the congregation petitioned the Superior Court to confirm the arbitrator’s award, the contractor responded with a petition to vacate.  The court ruled:

“[T]he … contract was illegal and void because Gardner Corporation was an unlicensed contractor…. Since the contract is illegal and void, so is the arbitration provision in the contract. Since the arbitration provision fails, the arbitrator was without authority to render a decision.”

(Full capitalization omitted).

The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the contract was not illegal and void at its inception. Thus, it remanded the case to the trial court to enter an order granting the petition to confirm the arbitration award.

Business & Professions Code Section 7031Templo Calvario v. Gardnerunlicensed contractors
  • Related Stories
  • Most Popular
  • Two Very Good Reasons To Visit The Department’s Website
  • Sealing A Contract May Mean Nothing Or 20 Years!
  • Ever Wonder What Money Is? California Has Some Answers And I Have Some Questions
  • Bitcoin And The Corporations Code
  • If You’re Relying On The Signature Of Two Officers, You May Want To Think Again
  • Court Explicates Scope of Usury Exemption For Real Estate Brokers
  • Conflict Minerals Bill In Suspense File (For Now)
  • Concurrent Jurisdiction Found For Covered Class Actions
  • Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Delaware Approach To Fair Value Burden Of Proof
  • SEC Proposes John Wilkes Booth Rules
  • If I Were A Carpenter, I’d Build A Better Proxy
  • CalPERS’ Annus Horribilis: How Much Worse Will It Get?
← Previous Next →

AUTHOR

Keith Paul Bishop
Partner
(949) 553-1313
kbishop@allenmatkins.com
CONTACT ME

RECOGNITION

NEWSLETTER

TOPICS

  • Accountants
  • Administrative Procedure
  • Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product
  • Broker-Dealers
  • California Securities Laws
  • California Sui Generis
  • CalPERS/CalSTRS
  • Choice of Law/Conflict of Law
  • Corporate Governance
  • Department of Corporations
  • Derivative Suits
  • Enforcement & Investigations
  • Fairness Hearings
  • Finance Lenders
  • Financial Institutions
  • Investment Advisers
  • JOBS Act
  • Legislation
  • Limited Liability Companies
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Nevada Corporations
  • Non-Compete Agreements
  • Partnerships
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Pseudo-Foreign Corporations
  • Public Records Act/FOIA
  • Secretary of State
  • Securities Litigation
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

YOUTUBE

TWITTER

FACEBOOK

CALENDAR

August 2011
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Copyright © 2013 California Corporate & Securities Law.

Powered by WordPress and News.

  • follow:follow:
  • Become my Facebook friend Become my Facebook friend
  • Connect with me Connect with me
  • RSS RSS
  • Tweet with me Tweet with me