617 P.2d 19 (Ariz. 1980), 14681, J. W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Registrar of Contractors

Docket Nº:14681.
Citation:617 P.2d 19, 126 Ariz. 511
Opinion Judge:[10] Holohan
Party Name:J. W. HANCOCK ENTERPRISES, INC., dba Camelot Homes, Appellant, v. The REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS of the State of Arizona and Joel M. White, Appellees.
Attorney:[7] Sargeant, Elliott & Newman by William P. Sargeant, III, Phoenix, for appellant. [8] Fogel & Lamber, P. A. by Dennis M. Lamber, Phoenix, for appellees.
Case Date:September 03, 1980
Court:Supreme Court of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 19

617 P.2d 19 (Ariz. 1980)

126 Ariz. 511

J. W. HANCOCK ENTERPRISES, INC., dba Camelot Homes, Appellant,

v.

The REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS of the State of Arizona and Joel M. White, Appellees.

No. 14681.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

September 3, 1980

Page 20

[126 Ariz. 512] Sargeant, Elliott & Newman by William P. Sargeant, III, Phoenix, for appellant.

Fogel & Lamber, P. A. by Dennis M. Lamber, Phoenix, for appellees.

Page 21

[126 Ariz. 513] HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice.

Joel M. White entered into a contract with J. W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. to construct a home. On December 2, 1976, a dispute arose over the quality of workmanship and performance of the contract. White filed a complaint against Hancock with the Registrar of Contractors. After an administrative hearing on April 4, 1977, and a limited rehearing on July 30, 1977, the Registrar of Contractors suspended appellant Hancock's contractor's license for sixty (60) days pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(3) & (4). Hancock filed an action in the superior court for review of the decision of the Registrar of Contractors. The superior court affirmed the decision of the Registrar. Hancock filed a timely appeal.

We assumed jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to Rule 19(e), ARCAP, 17A A.R.S.

The facts established by the record are that the home to be constructed for White was customized in some particulars, one of which was that the cabinets were to be color coordinated in a color chosen by Mrs. White. This color scheme was to be carried out in all the cabinets throughout the house. In March 1976, the Whites were informed that the pine cabinets originally chosen were unavailable. More expensive birch cabinets were installed, at no extra charge, but these cabinets did not stain in the same hue as is obtained on the pine cabinets.

Additional coats of stain were applied by the contractor in April in an effort to match the original color chosen. The results of this effort not only did not correct the color situation but aggravated the condition. The Whites could not get the contractor to correct the problems caused by the restaining, so they filed a complaint with the Registrar.

At the hearing before the Registrar an investigator testified that the cabinets were intensely dark and unevenly sprayed, some areas having been missed altogether, that hardware had been sprayed over, that chipping was occurring on...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP