Legal Question in Construction Law in California

Re: signed contract

I have researched at great length whether a written contract can be accepted by an oral signature. In my case, the other party agreed to an investment deal by clearly expressing his agreement with the terms of a written proposal on a tape recording of a board meeting which he himself insisted be recorded. However, my research showed that a tape recorded acceptance is not the equivalent of a signature, even though a recording is a "writing" under the Evidence Code.

We were, eventually, able to get the court to agree that we were "in contract" with this guy, despite the lack of a signed agreement, on the theory that an offer can be accepted by performance in addition to signing. For example, if I say to you (orally or in writing), "If you paint my house, I'll pay you $1,000" and you paint my house, then there is a contract and I am obligated to pay you $1,000.

That is, if you are licensed!

In your case, however, YOU are the party making the offer. You are therefore not the person who can accept by performing. That puts you on thin ice. The strict requirements of the B&P Code on written contracts for home improvements would, at least in theory, cut against you in court.

Nevertheless, I believe the trend of decisions on matters like this is to protect properly-licensed contractors from being aced out of their charges by technical shortcomings in their contracts. I can't be sure, especially because this is a small-claims sized item anyway, and small-claims judges are less experienced and have less time to research their decisions, but I think you would have a pretty good chance of getting a judgment for the fair value, not necessarily the contract price, of the work you did on a "quantum meruit" (what it was worth) basis, to prevent the "unjust enrichment" of the property owner.

The B&P laws "requiring" a written contract do not always prevent a licensed contractor from getting a fair result in court.