Court Opinion

ID: 9725980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:25:39.394042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:22.401115
License: Public Domain

THE COURT
Essex, in its petition for rehearing, expresses concern because this court did not distinguish or mention the decisions in Proffitt & Durnell Plumbing, Inc. v. David H. Baer Co., 247 Cal.App.2d 518, 521 [55 Cal.Rptr. 764] and Currie v. Stolowitz, 169 Cal.App.2d 810, 815 [338 P.2d 208], upon which it relies; and, as additional supporting authority, cites the recent decision in General Ins. Co. of America v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., *(Cal.App.) 80 Cal.Rptr. 856. Suffice to say Essex misconceived the holdings in these cases, each of which, contrary to the situation at bench, involved a “contract for which a license is required.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031.) A contract for the purchase and sale of materials is not a contract for which a license is required.
The petition of the real party in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 17, 1969.

A rehearing was granted on October 16, 1969. The final opinion was filed on December 18, 1969, and certified for nonpublication.