Superior Court Los Angeles County

Procedural Posture

Defendant joint venturers appealed an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which rendered judgment for plaintiff architect in a suit plaintiff filed to recover for services rendered under a contract he entered into with defendants' joint venture partner.

Overview

Plaintiff architect had contracted with a joint venture to design houses for a subdivision. When plaintiff filed suit to recover for services rendered, defendant joint venturers alleged that they were not bound by the contract, since the person who had signed it had no authority to do so, and that plaintiff was not permitted to recover because he was not a licensed architect. The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff. Defendants attempted to appeal both the original judgment and the modified judgment. On appeal, the court dismissed the appeal of the original judgment and affirmed the modified judgment. The court held that all members of a joint venture had the authority to enter into binding contracts for the venture. The court held that plaintiff was entitled to be paid for the services he rendered which fell into the exemption in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 15009(1), which permitted unlicensed architects to design single-family dwellings. The court refused to address the industrial building designed by plaintiff, holding that neither party had a legal remedy, since the contract for that building was illegal.

Outcome: biomass plaint technician

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment for plaintiff architect, because the contract signed by defendants' joint venture partner was binding on all members of the joint venture. While plaintiff was not a licensed architect, the services he performed fell into the statutory exemption for single-family dwellings; the court refused to interfere regarding the one industrial building plaintiff designed, as the parties were in pari delicto.

Procedural Posture

Appellant lessor sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County (California), in favor of appellee lessees in finding that the assignments of oil leases, the mortgage, and the drilling agreement were not usurious.