business law question

A state law required builders of homes to be licensed.  Although DelVal Construction, Inc. did not have a license, it built a home for German at a price of $385,000.  German made a down payment of $65,000 before DelVal began construction.  When German failed to pay the balance that was owed, DelVal sued her.  She raised the defense that the unlicensed contractor could not recover for the contract price.  The jury, after hearing the evidence, concluded that DelVal performed satisfactory work.  DelVal claimed that the lack of a license was not a bar to recovering the money because the president of the corporation was a licensed builder and the only shareholder of the corporation.  Is this an illegal contract?  Should the law allow German to take advantage of DelVal by not paying the additional $320,000 for the house?  What public policy would support such an outcome?  Which party will succeed?