Friday, June 17, 2011

Ball v. Steadfast BLK (Cal. Ct. App. - June 14, 2011)

I couldn't agree more with Justice Blease.

It's true that unlicensed contractors can't recover money, even for work they've done.  But David Ball was licensed.  Sure, his d/b/a was "Clark Heating and Air Conditioning," whereas here he did the work as "Clark Air Conditioning and Heating" -- essentially, transposing the two types of work.

But he still has a license.  He should be paid.

Judge Chang (up in Sacramento) held otherwise.  Glad she was reversed.

Doctrinally, Justice Blease is correct.  Ditto for the equities.