• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

civil rights Title 42 Sec 1981

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

capzen

Junior Member
Equal rights, Making of contracts The State of Az says as a carpenter, if i wish to make a cotract with someone to add onto or build new something that in total cost is over 750.00 that i must be tested as a contractor and pay the fees. If i do not i must work for a contractor that the state has licensed. This contractor may hire any number of (untested) person to do unsupervised work for them. Where as a lone worker not wanting to work for said company corpartion or business i must be tested. The state has made a class (contractors) and has given the them the right to control all major contracts
1.Is this treating all in like circumstance the same ?
2.Is the contractor the same class as the trade person?
3.the testing of one person for an entire company is this protection?
4.the state uses the licensing as a advertesment of protection
and in reality they protection is limited to 100,000 per contractor leaving claims after that number to civil court Is this equal protection under the law for the consumer.
 


racer72

Senior Member
Every state consititution must carry provisions that give each state legislature the power to pass laws that are considered "for the welfare of the citizens" or "for the good of the people". This is the basis for a good chuck of the laws in each state and your states laws concerning the licensing of building contractors fall in this category. Besides the obvious reason, collection of taxes, the licensing laws provide some security for the consumers of the state. Go over and read the 'construction and renovation' or 'litigation' categories and you will find many posts by individuals that were victims on unlicensed contractors. And as such, have no legal recourse for remedy.
To answer your questions,
1. Yes, anyone can attempt to become a licensed contractor.
2. There are significant differences between a contractor and a tradesman. A contractor would oversee a whole spectrum of jobs while a trademan would perform one job.
3. Having the knowledge of state and local codes would be a good start. And as the contractor, he puts his license on the line with every job his employees do. It is a defense for the state in the event of litigation, the state can claim that as a licensed contractor, the person knows the laws and codes and the state cannot be held liable.
4. Yes, the $100, 000 limit applies to everyone, not just a few. It is security to know that if a contractor does not do his job, that state will guarantee that you will be fairly compensated.
 

capzen

Junior Member
1. anyone may attempt to become a contractor yes, but the ? is
are they treating all person in like circumstance. The contractor may hire any number of none trained or tested person to do their work. in most cases with no direct supervision by the tested party
this lets one tested party qualify any number of untested for the protection of the general public. In the case of a person not wanting to work for a business or corparation but working alone, this person must be tested where there are numerous in the trade not being test. this is not like treatment in a class in my view. The state has the right yes, but with that right they have the need to make law or regulation that are fair and work and
that do not discriminate.
2.agree contractor are different then trade persons. In your definition u say that the contractor oversees the jobs that is part of the ?. if the tested party is doing several jobs in several different cities in a state where is the supervision, the protection
of the tested party? contractors gemeral or subs are contractors would u agree? trade persons (plumbers carpenters ect ) are their own class but the state is mixing the two to their liking
to let the contractors monopllize the business. they don't do it in law medcine. in fact for my own info in what other occupations do they make one person test to qualify others? I can't think of one
3.agree know the code and regs but if the tested party is not supervizing the jobs and just using their liablity standing as protection that is not a police power and the right for a state to test occupations is part of their police power acts. licensing is the preventing of injury not find out who's pay for it after the injury has happened. the setup now would be like me testeing for a drivers license after passing letting my whole family drive because I,m the qualifing party for my family, but no real protection to my family or the general public?
4. the limits to what the home own that hires the contractor is the problem. If the contractors is liable only for 20 or 25ooo.oo
per contract and a total of 100,000.00 over all that is not equal protection for the consumer. the state is saying the first to the door awell be covered the rest must go to civil court or forget it
not equal protection to all in like circumstance again.
The states liablity is in ? because they are letting one person qualify for any number of untested they made this reg they must be part of it. again doctor lawyers even hairdressers all tested as
indivuals not no qualfing agents. this is constitutional, test all in
or none in a class this is constitutional
Thanks again for your input on this more views are welcomed
just looking for the truth
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top