Court Opinion

ID: 9573958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:00:56.661699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:48.314898
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, J.,
dissenting.
In deciding that ORS 671.625 forbids landscaping businesses that are working under an oral contract from making any claim to compensation, the majority reads too much into the statute. Because I do not believe the majority’s result *419follows either from the language or the legislative purposes of the statute, I must respectfully dissent.
ORS 671.625(3) contains the only sanction imposed upon landscapers who fail to comply with the requirement that all work be performed subject to a written contract. That section expressly provides: “A contract that does not substantially comply with this section may not be enforced by a landscaping business in any court or other proceedings within the state.” (Emphasis supplied). An action in quantum meruit is not an action to enforce a contract. “It is a remedial device which the law affords to accomplish justice and prevent unjust enrichment. * * * Quantum meruit presupposes that no enforceable contract exists.” Kashmir v. Patterson, 43 Or App 45, 47-48, 602 P2d 294 (1979). Nothing in ORS 671.625(3) forbids such an action.
Because the statute is clear on its face, there is no need to resort to legislative history. Even were the statute ambiguous, nothing in the legislative history compels the conclusion that the legislature intended to forbid any and all claims for compensation. In barring landscape businesses, but not consumers, from enforcing the terms of an oral contract, ORS 671.625 imposes a substantial penalty for non-compliance.1 The legislature could have determined that this penalty was sufficient to discourage the use of oral contracts by landscapers.
The legislature knew how to prohibit any and all actions for compensation for failure to comply with statutory guidelines. See, e.g., ORS 701.065(1).2 It chose not to do so, *420thus avoiding an unfair result and windfall to consumers. I prefer not to read into the section that which the legislature has omitted.
*419“(1) A builder may not file a lien, file a claim with the Builders Board or bring or maintain in any court of this state a suit or action for compensation for the performance of any work on a residential structure or for the breach of any contract for work on a residential structure which is subject to this chapter, unless the builder was:
“(a) Registered under this chapter at the time the builder bid was entered into the contract for performance of the work; and
“(b) Registered continuously while performing the work for which compensation is sought.”
*420Warren, J., joins in this dissent.

 For example, under the statute, a landscaper cannot sue for wilful breach by a consumer. If, therefore, a consumer chose to repudiate a contract after the landscaper had partially performed, the landscaper would lose the benefit of the bargain, despite a successful action in quantum meruit.