A homeowner hires an unlicensed contractor who completes a $40,000 remodel and is fully paid. Under §7031, the homeowner may:

Explanation

§7031(b) is a disgorgement remedy rather than a damages remedy: a person who used the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action to recover all compensation paid to that contractor for the performance of any act or contract requiring a licence. It never asks whether the work was any good, which is why the other three all measure the wrong thing — (b) treats completion as a defence, (c) turns the claim into an ordinary construction-defect claim, and (d) tries to leave the contractor its costs. §7031(a) is the same policy from the other side, barring the unlicensed contractor from suing for an unpaid balance regardless of the merits. §7031(e) leaves one narrow door, and only for someone who has at some point held a California licence: the court may find substantial compliance where the person had been duly licensed before performing, acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure on learning of it. Contracting without a licence is also a misdemeanour under §7028(a).