MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS DEFENSES

Jay Cameron

Street Address

City, State  Zip

Phone Number (with area code)

Fax Number (If applicable)

Email Address (If applicable)

In Pro Per

DORCHESTER COUNTY MAGISTRATE COURT, SUMMERVILLE

NOW COMES Jay Cameron, Respondent, and files this Memorandum in Support of Respondent’s Defenses, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

Respondent’s Statement of Facts

1. Respondent contracted a general contractor to work on her business’ kitchen.
2. Respondent needed an architectural drawing showing the work that would be done on the kitchen.
3. Respondent later found out that the contractor she had hired was not licensed, and that he had asked someone else to pull his permit.
4. For reasons unknown to Respondent, the person declined to help the contractor, and he could not pull his permit.
5. Respondent had to pull the permit herself so the subcontractors could also pull their own permits.
6. The contractor hired an electrician and a plumber, Petitioner, to do their work. Since the contractor could not pull his permit, Petitioner too could not pull his permit in accordance with South Carolina law.
7. Before Respondent pulled her permit, Petitioner went ahead and pulled a residential permit instead of a commercial permit. The permit also contains Respondent’s landlord’s name instead of Respondent’s name.
8. Petitioner pulled a residential permit instead of a commercial permit because he knew that a general permit, architectural drawing and an acknowledgement letter signed by the landlord and notarized were required to pull a commercial permit for the work that needs done.
9. For Respondent to pull the permit, she had to show that she had subcontractors for the electrical and plumbing work.
10. Respondent informed the contractor who went ahead and called Petitioner and the electrician to send estimates to Respondent.
11. Petitioner had began working even before pulling the commercial permit.
12. When Respondent received the estimates, everyone understood that they were for commercial permit purposes only.
13. However, Respondent called the contractor and Petitioner’s company to ask why she was receiving estimate for work that she did not want to be done.
14. They informed Respondent that it was just an estimate since they had already pulled a permit for the same address. The permit had Respondent’s landlord’s name and the unlicensed contractor’s signature.
15. Knowing that they were just estimates for the permit, Respondent signed the estimates.
16. Few days later, Respondent received invoices for two jobs that had been done, that she had not authorized.
17. Apparently, Petitioner had installed a new water heater without Respondent’s authorization.
18. Respondent did not pay the invoices as she had not authorized the work to be done.
19. Respondent also found out, the Petitioner signed the residential party themselves, as unlicensed contractor declares the signature was not his and he does not have any contract with petitioner, that was the sole reason for Petitioner sending unauthorized work estimate to Respondent, so he can take advantage of the permit situation.
20. Respondent asked petitioner who authorized him to do the job, when subpoenaed for a hearing between Respondent and unlicensed contractor, Petitioner said he could not remember, that water heater was malfunctioning and old, so he choose to change it, this statement from Petitioner is on record.
21. In bad faith, Petitioner has brought this action.

Legal Argument

There is No Contract Between Petitioner and Respondent

A contract requires a meeting of the minds between the parties. This means that both parties must agree on the essential terms of the contract. In this case, there was no meeting of the minds as to the work that was to be performed.

Respondent only signed the estimates  to pull the commercial permit.

The fact that Petitioner performed additional work without Respondent’s authorization is clear evidence that there was no meeting of the minds as to the work that was to be performed. Petitioner knew that Respondent did not authorize him to install a new water heater, but he did it anyway. This shows that Petitioner did not agree to the terms of the contract that Respondent proposed.

Consideration is something of value that is exchanged between the parties to a contract. In this case, there was no consideration for Petitioner’s work. Respondent did not agree to pay Petitioner for the work that he performed without her authorization.

The fact that Respondent did not agree to pay Petitioner for the work that he performed without her authorization is clear evidence that there was no consideration for Petitioner’s work. Consideration is essential for a contract to be valid. Without consideration, there is no contract.

Even if there was a contract between Petitioner and Respondent, it would be unenforceable because it was unconscionable. An unconscionable contract is one that is so unfair that it is against public policy. In this case, the contract is unconscionable because Petitioner took advantage of Respondent’s lack of knowledge about the construction industry.

Respondent is a small business owner who is not familiar with the construction industry. Petitioner, on the other hand, is a professional plumber who has years of experience in the industry. Petitioner knew that Respondent did not understand the industry, and he took advantage of this by performing additional work without her authorization. Also there was nowhere on the estimate where it states , signing that estimate will be considered a contract.

The Contractor Whose Name Appeared on the Residential Permit Was Not Licensed

Section 40-11-370 of the South Carolina Code of Laws states that “it is unlawful to use the term ‘licensed contractor’ or to perform or offer to perform general or mechanical construction without first obtaining a license as required by this chapter.”

The contractor whose name appeared in the residential permit did not have a valid license to perform general or mechanical construction. As a result, the permit was issued in violation of South Carolina law.

Petitioner’s Lien and Claims are Barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands

The doctrine of unclean hands is a legal principle that prevents a party from obtaining relief from a court if that party has engaged in inequitable or wrongful conduct. In this case, Petitioner has engaged in a number of inequitable and wrongful conduct.

South Carolina law requires that all contractors who perform work on residential or commercial properties in the state be licensed by the South Carolina Department of Commerce. The purpose of this licensing requirement is to protect consumers from unqualified and unscrupulous contractors. By using a permit with the signature of an unlicensed contractor, Petitioner violated this important consumer protection law.

Petitioner performed additional work on Respondent’s property without Respondent’s authorization. This is also a clear example of inequitable conduct.

Respondent signed the estimates with the sole purpose of obtaining a permit. However, Petitioner went beyond and performed additional work without Respondent’s authorization. The actual plumbing work which was stated on the architectural drawing and scope of work submitted to the city, that Respondent contracted contractor to do was not done. This conduct is not only inequitable, but it is also a violation of Respondent’s property rights.

Petitioner attempted to collect payment for the work that he performed on Respondent’s property, even though he knew that the work was unauthorized. This is also a clear example of inequitable conduct.

By attempting to collect payment for unauthorized work, Petitioner is essentially trying to profit from his own wrongdoing. This conduct is not only inequitable, but it is also a violation of public policy.

As a result of Petitioner’s inequitable conduct, he is barred from obtaining relief from the court. The doctrine of unclean hands prevents a court from granting relief to a party who has engaged in inequitable conduct. In this case, Petitioner has engaged in a number of inequitable and wrongful conduct, and as a result, he is barred from obtaining relief from the court.

Petitioner’s conduct was in bad faith. Petitioner knew that Respondent had not authorized him to perform the additional work, but he did it anyway. He then tried to collect payment for the work that he knew was unauthorized. This conduct is a clear example of bad faith.

Bad faith is a legal term that refers to conduct that is intentionally dishonest or fraudulent. In this case, Petitioner’s conduct was clearly dishonest and fraudulent. He knew that he was not authorized to perform the additional work, but he did it anyway. He then tried to collect payment for the work that he knew was unauthorized. This conduct is a clear example of bad faith.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays for the following relief:

1. That Petitioner’s mechanic’s lien be dismissed;
2. That the court issue an order revoking the lien;
3. That Respondent be awarded his costs of this action; and
4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable.

Dated this ____ day of June, 2023.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jay Cameron

Respondent

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )