Paretchan v. M. & S. Farms

GRIFFIN, J. Plaintiff filed this action against defendants, alleging that in 1944 he performed certain services in connection with the purchase of grapes and tree fruits, as an agent and buyer of defendants.

Count one alleged an express contract for payment of a commission of $3.50 a ton for tree fruits and $2.00 per ton for grapes, totaling $4,857.50, and that $1,150 had been paid on said contract.

Count two alleged an open book account in the same amount.

Count three was for reasonable value of services performed for a claimed balance due.

In count four plaintiff asked for $400 for use and operation of his truck.

The trial court found as to the first count that no express contract was entered into as alleged; and as to count two, that there was no open book account. On count three it allowed $2,450 as the reasonable value of services performed, less a credit of $1,150 theretofore paid, and also allowed $200 on count four for the use of the truck.

Defendants appealed from the judgment, claiming that plaintiff is not entitled to recover for services performed and materials furnished because he failed to comply with the regulation of the Office of Price Administration requiring the filing of a statement of maximum prices and pricing methods; that an illegal contract resulted from the failure to file the statement and that plaintiff can recover neither contractually nor by quantum meruit, citing Maximum Price Regulation Number 165, issued by the Office of Price Administration under the authority of Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, and particularly sections 14, 15, 21, and 23-(16) thereof, and such cases as Napa Valley E. Co. v. Calistoga E. Co., 38 Cal.App. 477 [176 P. 699]; Citizens State Bank v. Gentry, 20 Cal.App.2d 415 [67 P.2d 364], to the effect that when it appears that there is a violation of a statute designed for the protection of the public with a penalty prescribed for the violation thereof, such penalty is equivalent to express prohibition, and a contract made in violation of the terms [282]thereof is void, and that illegal contracts, contrary to public morals or public policy, are not enforceable.

Plaintiff concedes the law as stated but claims those eases are completely inapplicable and irrelevant insofar as the facts and findings in this case are concerned. Plaintiff contends that he, as an employee, was not required to file the O.P.A. statement referred to; that the trial court specifically found that no illegal contract had been made by the parties; that no provision in the O.P.A. statute taints as illegal a contract entered into without the filing of the statement; and even if,a void contract had been entered into, and particularly if it were not in violation of public policy, the law and good conscience would permit recovery for the reasonable value of work and labor actually performed.