Categories
Home/Law/State law requires builders of homes to be licensed. Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000. German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction. When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her. She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover from the contract price. The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work. DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation. Is this an illegal contract? Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house? What public policy would support such an outcome? Which party will succeed?

State law requires builders of homes to be licensed. Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000. German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction. When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her. She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover from the contract price. The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work. DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation. Is this an illegal contract? Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house? What public policy would support such an outcome? Which party will succeed?

The conflict between DelVal Construction, Inc. and German is complicated because the company operates without a license and, therefore, breaks the state’s law. At the same time, initially, German officially agreed to pay for the house constructed by DelVal, and her refusal to pay $320,000 for the house breaks the previously signed contract. It is interesting to notice that German chose DelVal for construction and paid $65,000 to it before the beginning of work even though the company had no license. However, the absence of DelVal’s license became a problem for German when she failed to make the second part of the payments.

After the investigation and analysis of the given case, it could be concluded that the contract between DelVal Construction, Inc. and German is legal. Without a doubt, the company breaks state law by operating without a license and should be fined for it. However, this problem does not change the fact that DelVal is a registered company and operates legally and, hence, has a right to perform construction works. Furthermore, the single stakeholder of DelVal is a licensed builder. Since DelVal Construction, Inc. had a legal right to operate, its contract with German is also legal. Prior to the judicial proceeding, German became statutory obliged to pay for the services provided by DelVal Construction, Inc. and should pay $320,000.

What is more, the law should not allow Germany to benefit from DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house. German found a loophole to escape the payments and benefit from the absence of DelVal’s license. However, the absence of a license did not stop German from contracting the corporation in the beginning. It seems fair to fine German for the failure to make payments because she violated the legal agreement with DelVal Construction, Inc.

As for the public policy that would support such an outcome, it is civil law. Civil law is applicable to the cases of both German and DelVal Construction, Inc. German attempted to benefit from DelVal by using a legal loophole as a reason to escape the payments. Since there was no just reason to refuse to pay to DelVal, German should be fined for this. DelVal Construction, in its turn, violated civil law by constructing houses without being licensed for this type of operation.

To sum up, in the presented case, the success is on the side of DelVal Construction, Inc. In spite of the existing violations of civil law by DelVal, German is still obliged to pay the remaining balance. The parties came to this agreement before the beginning of construction works, and if German indeed does not want the house to be constructed by an unlicensed company, she should have checked DelVal’s status in advance.

Rate the answer:
Views: 15
Answer by Academic.tip's expert
An answer to this question is provided by one of our experts who specializes in law. Let us know how much you liked it and give it a rating.

Cite this page

Select a citation style:

References

Academic.Tips. (2023) 'State law requires builders of homes to be licensed. Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000. German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction. When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her. She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover from the contract price. The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work. DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation. Is this an illegal contract? Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house? What public policy would support such an outcome? Which party will succeed'. 12 February.

Reference

Academic.Tips. (2023, February 12). State law requires builders of homes to be licensed. Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000. German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction. When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her. She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover from the contract price. The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work. DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation. Is this an illegal contract? Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house? What public policy would support such an outcome? Which party will succeed? https://academic.tips/question/state-law-requires-builders-of-homes-to-be-licensed-although-delval-construction-inc-did-not-have-a-license-it-built-a-home-for-german-at-a-price-of-385000-german-made-a-down-payment-of-65000/

References

Academic.Tips. 2023. "State law requires builders of homes to be licensed. Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000. German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction. When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her. She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover from the contract price. The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work. DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation. Is this an illegal contract? Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house? What public policy would support such an outcome? Which party will succeed?" February 12, 2023. https://academic.tips/question/state-law-requires-builders-of-homes-to-be-licensed-although-delval-construction-inc-did-not-have-a-license-it-built-a-home-for-german-at-a-price-of-385000-german-made-a-down-payment-of-65000/.

1. Academic.Tips. "State law requires builders of homes to be licensed. Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000. German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction. When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her. She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover from the contract price. The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work. DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation. Is this an illegal contract? Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house? What public policy would support such an outcome? Which party will succeed?" February 12, 2023. https://academic.tips/question/state-law-requires-builders-of-homes-to-be-licensed-although-delval-construction-inc-did-not-have-a-license-it-built-a-home-for-german-at-a-price-of-385000-german-made-a-down-payment-of-65000/.


Bibliography


Academic.Tips. "State law requires builders of homes to be licensed. Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000. German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction. When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her. She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover from the contract price. The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work. DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation. Is this an illegal contract? Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house? What public policy would support such an outcome? Which party will succeed?" February 12, 2023. https://academic.tips/question/state-law-requires-builders-of-homes-to-be-licensed-although-delval-construction-inc-did-not-have-a-license-it-built-a-home-for-german-at-a-price-of-385000-german-made-a-down-payment-of-65000/.

Work Cited

"State law requires builders of homes to be licensed. Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000. German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction. When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her. She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover from the contract price. The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work. DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation. Is this an illegal contract? Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house? What public policy would support such an outcome? Which party will succeed?" Academic.Tips, 12 Feb. 2023, academic.tips/question/state-law-requires-builders-of-homes-to-be-licensed-although-delval-construction-inc-did-not-have-a-license-it-built-a-home-for-german-at-a-price-of-385000-german-made-a-down-payment-of-65000/.

Copy
Consider criminal behavior. Are all activities that are labeled criminal really wrong from an ethical perspective? Where should we draw the line between survival and criminal behavior, e.g.?
Wright owned a small grocery store in West Philadelphia one block from City Avenue. At that point, the avenue is the western boundary of the city, separating it from Delaware County. All of Wright’s customers were drawn from the city and from an area no more than ten blocks distant from the store. There are two competing stores in the same area in Philadelphia. Wright sold the store (the building, stock, and other fixtures) and the goodwill to Hagerty for $950,000 and, in the contract of sale, covenanted never to compete with Hagerty in the grocery business anywhere in the City of Philadelphia. Six months after the business was sold, Wright opened another grocery store less than one block from City Avenue in Delaware County. The new store was located almost due west of the store now owned by Hagerty, which made them about two blocks apart. Almost immediately, Wright began soliciting business from his old customers, and within four months, at least thirty percent of his sales were being made to former customers drawn from Philadelphia. Hagerty now seeks to have Wright enjoined from operating the store in Delaware County. Wright contends he should not be enjoined because the covenant is unenforceable and creates a monopoly. He further argues that even if the covenant is enforceable in all respects, he has not violated it. Is this noncompetition clause valid? Should Wright be enjoined from operating his new store?
Check the price of your paper