P was an African American unlicensed subcontractor who was contracted to provide cleanup services for D for a fixed price.
P alleged that D discriminated against him because of his race by ridiculing him in front of other workers and by not paying him while they paid unlicensed white subcontractors.
D refused to pay P and broke their contract because of "incomplete performance".
P sued D for failure to pay and for racial discrimination.
Procedural History:
P brought case before lower court 3 times. All were dismissed on demurrer.
CA Court of Appeals reversed, found that D could sue for racial discrimination, not for failure to pay.
Issues:
Is a contract enforceable when the services rendered are done so illegally because of lack of license.
Holding/Rule:
A contract is not enforceable when the services rendered are done so illegally because of lack of license.
Reasoning:
The purpose of the licensing law is to protect the public from incompetence and dishonesty in those who provide building and construction services.
Section 7031 of the Business and Professions Code of CA advances this purpose by withholding judicial aid from those who seek compensation for unlicensed contract work.
The public policy involved is that the state wants to discourage people who have failed to comply with the licensing laws from offering or providing their unlicensed services for pay.
The importance of deterring unlicensed persons from engaging in the contracting business outweighs any harshness between the parties.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
Public policy was a big concern here. (public protection through having only licensed contractors be able to form enforceable contracts for services rendered)
