Restitution–Quasi-Contract–Non-Conformance with State Building Contractors Licensing Statute as Basis for Denial of Restitution
Defendants, owners of an apartment building containing stores and living units, contracted with plaintiff to replace the roof of the building. Pursuant to the contract plaintiff replaced the roof, and when defendants refused to pay for the work done, plaintiff sued in the alternative for damages on the contract or for restitution on an implied contract. Defendants moved for dismissal at pre-trial, contending that plaintiff was a residential alteration contractor and as such was required by state statute to have a license in order to bring an action for the collection of compensation. On appeal from pre-trial orders dismissing the suit and denying a motion for rehearing, held, affirmed. Statutory provisions precluding unlicensed alteration contractors from maintaining an action to recover for services rendered applied to the plaintiff and prevented him from recovering the cost of the roof installed, either on the contract or in restitution. Alexander v. Neal, 364 Mich. 485, 110 N.W.2d 797 (1961).