Asdourian v. Araj

I dissent.

To achieve what they perceive as a desirable result, the majority employ equity in a simple contract action and in doing so they emasculate a legislative enactment that is clear and unambiguous.

Indeed, the majority concede, as they must, that “Since plaintiff did not have a license in his own name, he performed these contracts in violation of sections 7028.5 and 7117. Hence, he was not duly licensed. If literal compliance with section 7031 is required, he cannot legally maintain these actions.” (Ante, p. 285.) Nevertheless the majority proceed by deft legerdemain to find that “the…