O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
This chapter is enacted for the purpose of safeguarding homeowners, other property owners, tenants, and the general public against faulty, inadequate, inefficient, or unsafe electrical, plumbing, low-voltage
wiring, utility contracting, or conditioned air installations. The practice of electrical contracting, plumbing contracting, installing, or repairing, low-voltage contracting, utility contracting, and conditioned air contracting are declared to be businesses or professions affecting the public interest; and this chapter shall be liberally construed so as to accomplish the purposes stated in this Code section.
History
Ga. L. 1949, p. 1622, § 1; Ga. L. 1968, p. 308, § 1; Ga. L. 1971, p. 583, § 2; Ga. L.
1980, p. 1299, § 1; Ga. L. 1983, p. 424, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1129, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 1756, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Construction contract not enforceable. - Contractor’s suit against a homeowner seeking over $33,000 for remodeling services was subject to summary judgment; the contract was void and unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b) because the contract provided for electrical and plumbing work and the contractor
did not have licenses for electrical and plumbing work as required by O.C.G.A. § 43-14-8. It was inconsequential whether the contractor met the definition of a “specialty contractor” in O.C.G.A. § 43-41-2(12). Restor-It, Inc. v. Beck, 352 Ga. App. 613, 835 S.E.2d 398, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 605 (2019).
Notes of Decisions
JR Constr./Elec., LLC v. Ordner Constr. Co., 669 S.E.2d 224 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 43-14-1. The State, therefore, regulates the profession for the purpose of “safeguarding homeowners, other property owners, tenants, and the general public against faulty, inadequate, inefficient, or unsafe electrical [contracting].”
Bowers v. Howell, 417 S.E.2d 392 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 43-14-1. Plaintiff argues that his failure to procure a license raises the affirmative defense of illegality, which has been waived by defendants since it was not pled as required by OCGA § 9-11-8 (c) and was not made an issue in the pretrial order pursuant to OCGA §…”
Brantley Land & Timber, LLC v. W & D Investments, Inc., 729 S.E.2d 458 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 43-14-1. The State, therefore, regulates the profession for the purpose of “safeguarding homeowners, other property owners, tenants, and the general public against faulty, inadequate, inefficient, or unsafe [utility contracting].”
Horney v. Panter, 420 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 43-14-1 states that Chapter 14 of Title 43 “is enacted for the purpose of safeguarding homeowners, other property owners, tenants, and the general public against faulty, inadequate, inefficient, or unsafe electrical .”
Waller v. State Constr. Indus. Licensing Bd., 299 S.E.2d 554 (Ga. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The classification thus denies to a locally-licensed plumber who is familiar with the state-wide plumbing code the privileges granted to a formerly state-licensed plumber who has no familiarity with the state plumbing code.”
Restor-It, Inc. v. Ashlyn Beck (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Thus, these licensing requirements are to be liberally construed because they are intended for the protection of the public against “faulty, inadequate, inefficient, or unsafe” electrical and plumbing contracting, OCGA § 43-14-1, as well as “faulty, inadequate, inefficient, and…”
Hawk's Landing Dev. Co. v. W & D Inv. (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “3 In the Georgia Code relating to the regulation of certain businesses, including [utility contracting], the State of Georgia declared the practice of [utility] contracting to be a business or profession “affecting the public interest.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.