Hanover Realty, Inc. v. Flickinger

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Hanover Realty, Inc. v. Flickinger

362 S.E.2d 173, 87 N.C. App. 674, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 3310

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 1, 1987

DocketNo. 8713SC384

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 362 S.E.2d 173 (Hanover Realty, Inc. v. Flickinger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanover Realty, Inc. v. Flickinger, 362 S.E.2d 173, 87 N.C. App. 674, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 3310 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

In this state one who for a fee or other charge constructs, or contracts to construct, for another a building that costs more than $30,000 to build is required to be licensed as a general contractor, G.S. 87-1, G.S. 87-10, G.S. 87-13, and if not so licensed the contract will not be enforced by our courts. Brady v. Fulghum, 309 N.C. 580, 308 S.E. 2d 327 (1983). Since the record shows without contradiction that though not licensed as such by the state plaintiff acted as a general contractor in contracting to build defendants’ house at a cost exceeding $30,000, the order refusing to enforce plaintiffs contract and dismissing its claim against defendants was properly entered. Plaintiffs argument that the law as above stated did not apply to it since the construction contracted for was supervised by its employee who was a licensed general contractor is unavailing; for under similar circumstances that same argument was rejected in Joe Newton, Inc. v. Tull, 75 N.C. App. 325, 330 S.E. 2d 664 (1985).

Affirmed.

Judges BECTON and Greene concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PHILLIPS, Judge.

In this state one who for a fee or other charge constructs, or contracts to construct, for another a building that costs more than $30,000 to build is required to be licensed as a general contractor, G.S. 87-1, G.S. 87-10, G.S. 87-13, and if not so licensed the contract will not be enforced by our courts. Brady v. Fulghum, 309 N.C. 580, 308 S.E. 2d 327 (1983). Since the record shows without contradiction that though not licensed as such by the state plaintiff acted as a general contractor in contracting to build defendants’ house at a cost exceeding $30,000, the order refusing to enforce plaintiffs contract and dismissing its claim against defendants was properly entered. Plaintiffs argument that the law as above stated did not apply to it since the construction contracted for was supervised by its employee who was a licensed general contractor is unavailing; for under similar circumstances that same argument was rejected in Joe Newton, Inc. v. Tull, 75 N.C. App. 325, 330 S.E. 2d 664 (1985).

Affirmed.

Judges BECTON and Greene concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 S.E.2d 173, 87 N.C. App. 674, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 3310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanover-realty-inc-v-flickinger-ncctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack