Legal Question in Construction Law in California

If there is no signed contract between the parties, but work has been done or goods supplied under it, an action called "quantum meruit" is available under which you can claim a reasonable price (i.e. fair market value price) for the performance rendered. In addition, a verbal contract is enforceable, although problematical to prove and enforce. I assume also that you either have a contractor's license or that you do not require a contractor's license for this work, as this would prevent you from enforcing even a quantum meruit or verbal contract.

Proviso: The above information does not constitute legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. www.BealBusinessLaw.com

I assume that if you have a restoration company you are probably also licensed. Licensed contractors are supposed to know they need signed papers, both to comply with the law and to form a basis for resolving disputes and getting paid. Anyway, here are some possibilities:

If the client wrote you, saying "If you remodel my kitchen like the attached sketches, I'll pay you $10,000" or the like, and you started work, there may be a written, unilateral contract.

If you gave the client a written proposal, and the client told you to proceed orally, there may be an oral contract.

Even if there is no contract, you may be entitled to colect the fair value of your labor and materials under theories of fairness with names like quasi-contract, quantum meruit, and quantum valebat.

I haven't researched the issue in many years, but as I recall, even licensed contractors doing home improvement work where the code requires a written contract have been able to collect something in court - maybe not the full contract price - where the contract or a quote was furnished but not signed, and the clent has no real basis for not paying except for the lack of a signature. The idea behind "quantum meruit" - which means "however much it merited" - is that contractors who perform valuable services should get the value of their work even if a defect in the contract prevents enforcement of the contract itself.