Defendant appealed from a decision by the Justice Court of Victor Judicial District (California) that convicted defendant of engaging in the business of contracting and acting in the capacity of contractor without having a license, in violation of jury instructions, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028.
Defendant argued that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028 was inapplicable because defendant was not acting as a contractor, but as an employee. The court stated that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7026 defined a contractor as any person who submitted a bid or offered to construct any structure or improvement or any part thereof. Defendant had agreed to erect a chimney and fireplace for the sum of $ 100 if the client would furnish the materials and would help on the job. The work was done and defendant received the agreed compensation. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7053 did not apply to any person who engaged in the activities as an employee with wages as his sole compensation. The court stated that the chief consideration that determined one to be an independent contractor was the fact that the employer had no right of control as to the mode of doing the work contracted for. The court found defendant was an artisan, trained in his profession as a mason. Defendant engaged to build a specified structure, to accomplish a specified result, for a specified compensation. The court found that defendant was not an employee, but was, in fact, an independent contractor.
The decision that convicted defendant of engaging in the business of contracting and acting in the capacity of contractor without having a license was affirmed.
Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in plaintiff's action alleging violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601 et seq.
Plaintiff, as trustee, borrowed money to be used for investing in coins. When plaintiff was unable to pay the principal when it became due, plaintiff elected to sell the property that had secured the loan. Plaintiff then brought suit alleging that defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act (Act), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1601 et seq., because defendants failed to provide notice to plaintiff of plaintiff's right to rescind the loan. The court held that the Act did not apply, because the Act required that the subject of the transaction be primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, while plaintiff had engaged in the transaction for investment purposes. Also, since the Act excluded trusts from coverage, it did not apply to plaintiff, who was serving as trustee. The awarding of attorney's fees was appropriate because attorney's fees were specifically provided for in an agreement between defendant and plaintiff.
Summary judgment in favor of defendants was affirmed because the Truth in Lending Act, under which plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to provide notice of plaintiff's right to rescind a loan, was not applicable because the loan at issue did not meet the statutory requirements.