Even More Clarification

And now having spoken with the individual who suggests that he was in fact the author of the Licensing regulation and the "Handyman exemption" in the Arizona statutes, I want to examine it still further.

It was explained to me that the element of "part of a larger project" is indeed part of the statute, but a major element in the enforcement and prosecution of that part has to be knowledge aforethought and intent. Of course, there might be the lack of knowledge on the part of the unlicensed contractor as in the case of a carpet tuck. The carpet person may be unaware that the project is recent and he was actually a part of it UNLESS he was hired by the person who did the tile job. Or the homeowner.

Of course the homeowner would know that tucking the carpet was a part of the project, at least for him. So if it was the intention of the homeowner to hire an unlicensed contractor prior to the installation, knowing he intended to hire someone unlicensed, then he would be guilty of the perpetration of a crime.

And too, if any individual contracts to perform a task where the materials AND labor equal or exceed that $1000 threshold, they would be considered guilty of that crime. So, of course, ANY flooring company who hires installers who provide him with a fixed price for installation where the product AND installation exceed $1000, and NOT possessing a license, is guilty of that crime as well. In fact, not only the installer but also the flooring company who knowingly hire the installer.

Comments