Defendant corporation sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which awarded judgment for plaintiff contractor for compensation for the performance of a written construction contract. Defendant contended that there was no substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was a duly licensed contractor at all times.

Plaintiff contractor had allowed its license to expire. Plaintiff entered into a written construction contract with the defendant to build an ice-skating rink. The contract was formally executed on Friday, October 25, 1968, and on Monday, October 28, 1968, the plaintiff's active license as a general contractor was renewed. It was on October 28, 1968, that plaintiff made his first payment on the contract, and work was begun by the plaintiff. All work on the project was performed after that date while the plaintiff had an active general contractor's license continuously in effect. Visit the one of the best san francisco labor law attorneys who know all about san francisco labor law.

Plaintiff brought an action for collection of compensation for the performance of the contract. The trial court awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed. The court held that the contract was legal and enforceable even though the plaintiff was unlicensed at the time the contract was executed. The court reasoned that the defendant received full value under the terms of the contract and that the licensing law should not be used as a shield for the avoidance of a just obligation.