Any person, firm, or corporation not being duly authorized who shall contract for or bid upon the construction of any of the projects or works enumerated in G.S. 87-1, without having first complied with the provisions hereof, or who shall attempt to practice general contracting in the State, except as provided for in this Article, and any person, firm, or corporation presenting or attempting to file as his own the licensed certificate of another or who shall give false or forged evidence of any kind to the Board or to any member thereof in maintaining a certificate of license or who falsely shall impersonate another or who shall use an expired or revoked certificate of license, or who falsely claims or suggests in connection with any business activities regulated by the Board that a person, firm, or corporation is licensed under this Chapter, and any architect or engineer who recommends to any project owner the award of a contract to anyone not properly licensed under this Article, shall be deemed guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. And the Board may, in its discretion, use its funds to defray the expense, legal or otherwise, in the prosecution of any violations of this Article. No architect or engineer shall be guilty of a violation of this section if his recommendation to award a contract is made in reliance upon current written information received by him from the appropriate Contractor Licensing Board of this State which information erroneously indicates that the contractor being recommended for contract award is properly licensed. (1925, c. 318, s. 12; 1931, c. 62, s. 3; 1937, c. 429, s. 6; 1983 (Reg. Sess., 1984), c. 970, s. 2; 1993, c. 539, s. 602; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2019-174, s. 6.)
Notes of Decisions
Ron Medlin Constr. v. Harris, 658 S.E.2d 6 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 87-13 (2001). The purpose of the licensing requirements “is to protect the public from incompetent builders.”
Lincoln v. Bueche, 601 S.E.2d 237 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat § 87-13 (2003). The evidence in this record shows that the house was sold to plaintiffs for $250,000.”
Spivey & Self, Inc. v. Highview Farms, Inc., 431 S.E.2d 535 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “A contractor in violation of this statute subjects himself to criminal penalties, N.C.G.S. § 87-13 (1989), and is precluded from suing the owner for breach of contract or in quantum meruit.”
RCDI Constr., Inc. v. Spaceplan/Architecture, Plan. & Interiors, P.A., 148 F. Supp. 2d 607 (W.D.N.C. 2001).
· cites it 2× “2d at 331 ; N.C. Gen.Stat. § 87-13. Similarly, Plaintiffs assertion that the contract is “saved” because the party which actually constructed the hotel was licensed in North Carolina at all times during construction is devoid of merit.”
Signature Dev., LLC v. Sandler Com. at Union, L.L.C., 701 S.E.2d 300 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 87-13 (2009). Furthermore, although the statute does not expressly preclude an unlicensed contractor’s *584 suit against an owner for breach of contract, the North Carolina Supreme Court held in Bryan Builders Supply v.”
C.C. Walker Grading & Hauling, Inc. v. S.R.F. Mgmt. Corp., 316 S.E.2d 298 (N.C. 1984).
“G.S. 87-13 provides for a criminal penalty for violation of the licensing requirement: Any person, firm or corporation not being duly authorized who shall contract for or bid upon the construction of any of the projects or works enumerated in G.”
Revis Sand & Stone, Inc. v. King, 270 S.E.2d 580 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
“G.S. 87-13 provides for a criminal penalty for violation of the licensing requirement: Any person, firm or corporation not being duly authorized who shall contract for or bid upon the construction of any of the projects or works enumerated in G.”
Fulton v. Rice, 184 S.E.2d 421 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).
“G.S. 87-13. It must be strictly construed and its scope may not be extended by implication beyond the meaning of its language so as to include offenses not clearly described.”
Zickgraf Enter., Inc. v. Yonce, 303 S.E.2d 852 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983).
“Its scope may not be extended by implication beyond the clear meaning of the statutory language so as to impose sanctions upon offenses by those persons not intended to be regulated.”
Vogel v. Reed Supply Co., 177 S.E.2d 273 (N.C. 1970).
“” G.S. 87-13 provides that any unlicensed person, firm or corporation who shall contract for or bid upon the construction of any of the projects or works enumerated in § 87-1, without first having obtained a license, or who shall attempt to practice general contracting in this…”
Sartin v. Carter, 332 S.E.2d 521 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).
“*283 G.S. 87-13 makes it a misdemeanor for one to practice or attempt to practice general contracting in this state while not licensed in accordance with G.”
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.