In King v. Riedl,

the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant did not have the right to proceed against them for sums allegedly owed,

because the contractor was not licensed as a residential home builder (as required by state law). What was the result on appeal?

Question

Business

Brielle Maxwell

26 November, 17:30

In King v. Riedl,

the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant did not have the right to proceed against them for sums allegedly owed,

because the contractor was not licensed as a residential home builder (as required by state law). What was the result on appeal?

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Rachael Singleton · Answer 1

Court ruled over in favor of the plaintiffs.

Explanation:

The result was that the court ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs because the contractor was statutorily barred from bringing an action to enforce payment because he doesn't has the residential home builder license and the amount of the contract satisfied statutory requirements.

In King v. Riedl,the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant did not have the right to proceed against them for sums allegedly owed,because the contractor was not licensed as a residential home builder (as required by state law). What was the result on appeal?

In King v. Riedl,

the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant did not have the right to proceed against them for sums allegedly owed,

because the contractor was not licensed as a residential home builder (as required by state law). What was the result on appeal?