Appellant contracting company challenged a judgment from the Court of Appeal of California in favor of respondent contractor in the contractor’s action to recover the balance of money due on a contract to construct and maintain the contracting company’s exhibit at the Seattle World’s Fair. Among other things, the contracting company argued that the contractor was not a licensed contractor under California law.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains Labor Code 970
Overview
The contracting company had retained the contractor, which built advertising exhibits, on hundreds of occasions. It entered into an agreement with the contractor to design, build, maintain, and dismantle its exhibit at the Seattle World’s Fair, which was by far the largest contract the contractor had ever undertaken. Disputes arose as to the final balance owed for the work. The contractor wanted its standard formula applied to the balance, but the contracting company wished to calculate the amount differently with respect to this particular job. On appeal the court rejected the contracting company’s argument that the contractor, a California business, was not a licensed California contractor and so could not even maintain its action. The court ruled that the work took place in Washington and so the Contractors’ License Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7000 et seq., did not apply. The court ruled that the conflicting evidence permitted the jury to find that there had been no accord and satisfaction as the contracting company asserted. The court ruled that it was not error to admit evidence of the past mark-up formula that had been applied in the parties’ past dealings.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the contractor, but modified it by eliminating the interest award and deducting an amount properly attributable to the separate maintenance contract that was not at issue. The contractor was awarded its costs on appeal.