Fadel v. Slayman

DORAN, J. The complaint herein recovery of $4,000 as agreed compensation for contractors’ services in the proposed construction of a fruit packing house at Lindsay, California. The then-named plaintiffs included Alfred N. Fadel and Job N. Fadel but at the commencement of the trial the court sustained defendant’s objection to the introduction of evidence as to these plaintiffs. The complaint also sought a declaration of rights with reference to two contracts claimed to have been entered into, at defendant’s request, with an attorney named Hal Hughes employed to obtain war priorities, and an architect named Peter Whitehall. The packing house was never constructed.

The trial court held that in making the contract the parties contemplated the obtaining of governmental priorities for materials and that since no such priorities were granted “both parties were then released from going further in execution of their agreement.” By way of declaratory relief, however, the court found that respondent had, at appellants’ request, entered into contracts with the above-mentioned attorney and architect and that “defendants are liable to said plaintiff in whatever sums the said plaintiff may by final [8]judgment be held liable to said Hughes (attorney) and Whitehall (architect).” To prevent a multiplicity of actions, the trial court also permitted an amendment to the complaint to conform to the proof, pleading quantum meruit.

In addition to the declared liability for attorney and architect fees, judgment was rendered for $1,875 as the reasonable value of services performed by Norman I. Fadel in preparation for the building of the plant.

It is contended in appellants’ brief that the court erred in holding defendants liable for the reasonable value of services rendered in preparing to construct the packing house for the reason that “An illegal contract can not be made the basis of recovery of the reasonable value of services,” and that “substantially all of the services performed by plaintiff were performed in preparing to carry out an illegal contract.” Appellants’ contention of illegality is based upon regulations of the War Production Board, in force in 1945, when the contract was to be performed; section 1075.1 Conservation Order L-41, prohibiting “construction” without authorization and necessary priorities. In the instant case, the War Production Board did authorize construction of the packing house on August 27, 1945, but refused to grant a priority for materials.