Of course! I think this area of law is hard because so much depends on the state and case law of that state. I know, at least in the Safe Sport threads lawyers were challenging my assertions that an appellate attorney worth their salt wouldn’t touch the case. Those attorneys had also argued in front of the SCOTUS. So what do any of s know really?
I appreciate any SOUND argument.
It was a genuine question. I thought I remembered from a SafeSport thread that you said you were Canadian, or perhaps not American. I apologize. I’m not dumping on people who are Canadian, but I think nationality is relevant when assessing posts discussing details of the law.
I did understand that you were explaining what the law might be, based on common law principles. But the question addressed to you by Knights Mom, I thought, referred to what the actual law was in NJ or in some specific state.
I did respond to your discussion regarding whether one could or would have to prove that MB knew RG was unlicensed. I think most courts would presume that when a property owner hires the boyfriend of a client who happens to be living in the unit, the property owner had no basis for thinking the boyfriend was a licensed contractor.If FitzE were a Canadian, as I incorrectly recalled, I’m not saying she shouldn't post, but just disclose her nationality. I recalled incorrectly, and have apologized.
Apparently she was not discussing the actual law in any specific jurisdiction, but rather discussing what types of laws would be consistent with legal principles in common law jurisdictions. As such, it is interesting, and I don’t disagree with it, but I was more interested in learning what the actual law was, in some US state, if not NJ.RG has a background in construction (can’t say how good or bad he is), so not just someone that is just handy. It is plausible that MB did think that RG was licensed.
Courts don’t presume these types of facts at all, that’s the job of the attorneys, to tell the Court what the facts are.
This is where a lot of people get frustrated at the court system, because facts not in evidence are not assumed. And a lot of the time there are facts in evidence that just plain don’t get accounted as important by most, but end up being super duper key to the case.
I mean, you say most people aren’t dating licensed contractors, but with little effort, you could also say someone who has the financial burden of numerous horses may only be able to support those horses because their partner makes a crap-tonne of money in construction.
Yes, considering RG’s previous employment with a bath/kitchen remodeling company, it would be easy to assume he was licensed and at a minimum proficient in the craft. He was working for the company when he went missing for a period of time as I recall. I could be mistaken though.
Fair point. All I knew about him was that he is an ex-Marine.
Where was the apology? I must have missed that.
And it is most demonstrably NOT “apparently”. I state specifically that I (i) do not practice the relevant type of law for these cases, and (ii) was not opining in NJ law. KM did not ask me to weigh in on NJ law, she asked me to weigh in on law in general.
[edit] And, no, you didn’t reply to any of my content. I believe you went back and edited your one-liner, cancel-culture response to look more thoughtful, but I have declined to read it. It is disingenuous of you to have edited that to make yourself look like you gave a more robust and reasonable response. It’s dishonest, but, then again, we are used to that from you.
No matter how you try to spin it you were canceling my contribution. I don’t need to disclose my passport countries to you of all people who coyly note you won’t disclose your state. You are remarkably rude, entitled, and, for the most part, talking out your nether regions. You have just enough vocabulary and google searches to sound quasi-learned, but have definitive contributions on exactly nothing. You phrase things as though butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, but you are uncivil in your discourse.
Please scroll past my contributions. [edit]
Most boyfriends of clients are not licensed contractors. If you happen to observe that the boyfriend is making a lot of money in construction on other projects, then I agree with you that it would be more natural to assume he is a contractor than otherwise. But I think the property owner still has a responsibility to take 4 seconds to search online as to whether the contractor is licensed, as several posters have done.
May I assume you are Canadian based on your spelling of “tonne”?Courts in NJ and several other states disagree with your opinion.
This. And the law can easily say, it doesn’t matter if you can establish 100% that client knew, you are still 100% liable. Or, in this case, 300% liable.
My apology to
@FitzE
for incorrectly thinking that she had said in a SafeSport thread that she was Canadian.
No, no, no, NO!!! We aren’t questioning identity but we ARE questioning nationality? Give me a break. (Sorry, I read the post before seeing who the poster was and knee-jerked. Back to regularly scheduled programming.)
Again, this. The law can be drafted to assign liability where they want it regardless of details. As I stated in the discussion of general principles, there are reasons to assign liability, like compelling state interest, that supersede layman ideas like it’s common sense that client would do a license search.
No, sorry. I just enjoy that particular spelling of crap-tonne. Although sometimes I flirt with spelling it crappe-tonne. For me, tonne looks heavier (and it is!)
In your previous post you reiterated that you were not talking about the actual law in NJ, or some other state, but what the law might say, based on general legal principles. True. No argument there.
But does any lawyer know what the law ACTUALLY says on this issue in, ideally, NJ, or in some US state?Good explanation. I kind of like crappe-tonne.
It’s quite the red herring you have going here.
The person without the license is breaking the law. The person that may have hired him has bigger legal problems to consider, than if he bears any responsibility for another person performing work without a license. 
I think that’s exactly what FrizE is telling us, “in this case, 300%” based on the statute that Knights Mom posted up-thread a bit.
So yeah, relying on what KM posted about NJ case law, regardless of the owners actual knowledge that a contractor does not have a license, the owner can refuse to pay the contractor for legit good work, and then when contractor sues, the owner can even get 300% of the amount requested by the contractor.
This appears to be true in other jurisdictions as well. Who knows what the hell was going on in NJ when these were written, maybe unions ran the show? Maybe construction/real estate developers?
Maybe a tile fell off a roof of a train station when the train was coming into the station and hit someone on the head?
The risk is subpar work that is not up to code and endangers the people living there. The state, rightfully and wisely, decides that it is the state’s responsibility to police all that, not the individual homeowner. It is too important an issue (the safety and habitability of buildings within their jurisdiction) to leave to the control or oversight of any individual homeowner, so they take it on themselves. Then they would look to see who best to punish in the case of non-compliance.
Like lawyers need to be responsible for our continuing edu, license, bar admission, etc. Our clients are never required in any way, even in the “4 seconds” it might take to see if we are currently in good standing and licensed, responsible for our compliance with any regulations on us as legal professionals. We are always 100% liable for an failure in that area even if we were to tell a client, “Hey, hire me! I’m cheap b/c I’ve failed to pay my dues and satisfy my CLP requirements in order to be a good standing!!!”
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use