671.625
Minimum standards for contracts and billings; rules; compliance; effect of
noncompliance. (1)
The State Landscape Contractors Board shall by rule adopt minimum standards for
written contracts and billings of the landscape contracting businesses. The
standards shall set forth requirements for information that must be contained
in contracts and billings. The information required shall be any information
the board determines is necessary to provide protection for consumers of the
services and materials provided by landscape contracting businesses.
(2) Work by a
landscape contracting business subject to ORS 671.510 to 671.760 for which the
business charges $2,000 or more for a landscape job, as defined in board rule,
shall only be performed subject to a written contract. Any contract or billing
for such work must conform to the standards adopted under subsection (1) of
this section.
(3) A contract
that does not substantially comply with this section may not be enforced by a
landscape contracting business in any court or other proceedings within this
state. [1979 c.840 §13; 1983 c.452 §12; 2007 c.541 §32; 2015 c.672 §11]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1988–1991 · leading case:
Jehnings v. Allison, 762 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
Jehnings v. Allison, 762 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 22× “Defendants contend that the trial court erred in failing to grant them a directed verdict on the theory that plaintiffs' action is barred by ORS 671.625. That section provides: "(1) The board shall by rule adopt minimum standards for written contracts and billings of the…”
Rhorer v. Vickers, 810 P.2d 1341 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs claim for compensation was barred under ORS 671.625, because he had performed landscaping work without a written contract.”
Valley Excavating, Inc. v. Clark, 810 P.2d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “Defendants contend that the contract between plaintiff and them was a landscape contract and was subject to minimum standards under ORS 671.625 and that, because it did not meet those standards, the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss and in entering a judgment…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 671.625(1): 1 case
Valley Excavating, Inc. v. Clark, 810 P.2d 869 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“Defendants contend that the contract between plaintiff and them was a landscape contract and was subject to minimum standards under ORS 671.625 and that, because it did not meet those standards, the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss and in entering a judgment…”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 671.625(2): 2 cases
Jehnings v. Allison, 762 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“Defendants contend that the trial court erred in failing to grant them a directed verdict on the theory that plaintiffs' action is barred by ORS 671.625. That section provides: "(1) The board shall by rule adopt minimum standards for written contracts and billings of the…”
Rhorer v. Vickers, 810 P.2d 1341 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs claim for compensation was barred under ORS 671.625, because he had performed landscaping work without a written contract.”
Or. Rev. Stat. § 671.625(3): 1 case
Jehnings v. Allison, 762 P.2d 1037 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
“Defendants contend that the trial court erred in failing to grant them a directed verdict on the theory that plaintiffs' action is barred by ORS 671.625. That section provides: "(1) The board shall by rule adopt minimum standards for written contracts and billings of the…”
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.