law assingment

Summary

A. Hydrotech Systems, Ltd.v.OasisWaterpark

Hydrotech Systems, Limited is a New York corporation that manufactures and installs patented equipment which aims at stimulating ocean waves. Hydrotech Systems argued that it is a unique company which has unique products and skills. It is focused at installing and maintaining products to its customers’ satisfaction.

Oasis Waterpark is a California corporation which operates a water-oriented amusement park, with their major contractor being Wessman Construction Company. Hydrotech Systems contracted with Wessman Construction Company, which is a licensed corporation in California, to build a surfing pool. Hydrotech Systems do not have a working license in California.

Hydrotech Systems sued Wessman Construction Company for withholding some of the money, this is due to the fact that they already had an agreement about the money that they would be receiving, Oasis Waterpark had the right to withhold a certain amount of money from Hydrotech Systems if they did not deliver, although they did what was expected of them.

B. MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental and Metal Works Co., Inc.

Niederhauser was contracted by owner Turner Corporation to perform specialized metal work, while the company was constructing a hotel. Niederhauser offered two subcontracts to the plaintiff MW Erectors, Inc. (MW), the first contract focused on the performance of MW on structural steel work, this was the structural contract. The second one was the ornamental contract which focused on MW’s performance of ornamental work. MW sued Niederhauser for breach of both contracts alleging that the company withheld amounts of $ 955,553 on the structural contract and $366,694. MW stated that even if they were not licensed while operating their activities, they worked in compliance with the C-51 requirement.

Analysis

In the first case, the defendant argues that section Hydrotech Systems are barred under section 7031. The defendant argues that the plaintiff was operating without a license which is against the constitution. The plaintiff on the other side argues that they were working out of the intent of the defendant. They argue that they would not have operated in California if the defendant did not insist on it, they also adds that they only operated there because what they were doing was right and they were helping the Oasis Waterpark with their unique skills.

In the second case, the defendant, Niederhauser uses the same argument claiming that MW were not licensed while they were working for them and therefore they were not officially permitted to work in California. On their defense to these allegations, MW argues that they were operating in compliance with the law.

According to section 7031, a person should not be compensated if working without being duly licensed. Also if a person is licensed from his or her state and it is controverted then the person should present documents to prove this.

Conclusion

The two cases are based on similar allegations and the case presented by both the plaintiff and the defense is almost similar. Section 7031 implies that contractors should be licensed in accordance with the law in the state of California if they want to work in California whether under a contract or business. The cases presents some injustices to the plaintiff, due to the fact that the defendants are withholding their pay and arguing that they are not licensed to work in California yet they decided to offer them a contract, so they should first pay them.