Food Industries Research and Engineering, Inc., a Washington Corporation v. State of Alaska, Greater Anchorage Development Corp.

507 F.2d 865 FOOD INDUSTRIES RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, INC., a Washington Corporation, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA et al., Defendants, Greater Anchorage Development Corp. et al., Appellees. No. 73-3023. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Nov. 19, 1974. Walter H. Garretson (argued), Anchorage, Alaska, for appellant. Walter W. Cardwell, III (argued), Richard F. Lytle (argued), Houston & Lytle, Anchorage, Alaska, for appellees. Before BROWNING, ELY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges. OPINION ALFRED T. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: 1 Plaintiff engineering firm appeals from a summary judgment denying recovery of the price of engineering services and quantum meruit relief. The district court held that the contract under which the services were performed was illegal from its inception because the engineers had not qualified to perform professional services in Alaska prior to entering into the contract. 1 2 The equities favor the engineers. Their plans were utilized in construction of the building. The illegality of the contract was a matter of inadvertence and bad timing. One of the engineers' officers applied for the requisite certification less than a month after the contract was…

Plaintiff engineering firm appeals from a summary judgment denying recovery of the price of engineering services and quantum meruit relief. The district court held that the contract under which the services were performed was illegal from its inception because the engineers had not qualified to perform professional services in Alaska prior to entering into the contract. 1

The equities favor the engineers. Their plans were utilized in construction of the building. The illegality of the contract was a matter of inadvertence and bad timing. One of the engineers’ officers applied for the requisite certifi *866 cation less than a month after the contract was made. The illegality caused no loss to the appellees. The engineers were at all times qualified to perform engineering services in the state of Washington, and obtained qualification in Alaska before the two final phases of the contract had been performed. Finally, the appellees’ agent appears to have been aware of the possibility that the engineers had not qualified to do business in Alaska. Less than three months after the contract was signed the agent wrote to the appellant’s head of engineering:

Though the equities…

(concurring):

In the light of certain writings of the Alaska Supreme Court, issued after the District Court’s entry of judgment, I cannot conscientiously dissent from the majority’s wish that the district judge be allowed to reconsider the dispute in the light of the subsequent state court expressions. It warrants emphasis, however, that it is not intended by the principal opinion to in any manner indicate this court’s view as to the decision that should be properly made by the District Court in its reconsideration. Speaking only for myself, I can perceive nothing in the utterances of the Supreme Court of Alaska, particularly in Gates v. Rivers Construction Co. and Sumner Development Corp. v. Shivers, cited in the principal opinion, that should induce the District Court to alter its original judgment and thus depart from our court’s holding in Hedla v. McCool, 476 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1973).