Other cases cited by the Van Zanens are distinguishable because the purchaser seeking restitution had not received or retained any benefit from the service or product. See Wineman v. Blueprint 100, Inc., 75 Misc.2d 665, 667, 348 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y.Civ.Ct. 1973); Kansas City Comty. Ctr. v. Heritage Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 185, 189-90 (8th Cir. 1992); Lund v. Cooper, 159 Cal.App.2d 349, 324 P.2d 62, 64-65 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App. 1958). To be sure, a few cases, a small minority, adopt the Van Zanen's view.
Ellers, Oakley's contracts with Defendants are unenforceable due to its failure to obtain proper certification, see Haith Co., 778 S.W.2d 417, and, therefore, Ellers, Oakley cannot recover any compensation under those contracts. Likewise, section 327.461 precludes Ellers, Oakley from recovering this same compensation under the label of quantum meruit relief. See Kansas City Community Ctr. v. Heritage Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 185, 189 (8th Cir. 1992); see also MacLean v. Ozark Mountain Country Mall, Inc. (In re Branson Mall, Inc.), 970 F.2d 456, 462 (8th Cir. 1992); Jehnings v. Allison, 93 Or.App. 414, 762 P.2d 1037, 1037-38 (1988) (en banc). The decision of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is, therefore, REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
Further, in prohibiting the Van Zanens' unjust enrichment claim, the Tenth Circuit explicitly distinguished cases cited by the Van Zanens on the basis that, in such cases, "the purchaser seeking restitution had not received or retained any benefit from the service or product." Id. at 1132 (distinguishing, inter alia, Kansas City Cmty. Ctr. v. Heritage Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 185, 189-90 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding plaintiff was entitled to restitution, despite the fact that defendant architect completed design plans, because plaintiff did not obtain any benefit from defendant's architectural plans when plaintiff did not use the plans and paid for the creation of new plans) and Wineman v. Blueprint 100, Inc. 348 N.Y.S.2d 721, 723 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1973) (finding defendant was entitled to restitution of retainer fee from plaintiff architect when architect was not licensed, as required by New York law, and, although architect performed his part of the contract, defendant "did not use the work product" of architect)); see Griffin v. Capital Sec. of Am., ___ P.3d ___, 2010 WL 4361378, at *13 (Colo. App. 2010) (finding restitution award proper despite fact that defendant "fully performed" because plaintiff "did not realize the full benefit of the transaction") (distinguishing Comet Theatre Enter., Inc. v. Cartwright, 195 F.2d 80, 82 (9th Cir. 1952) (restitution denied when there was "no p
Space Planners Architects, Inc. v. Frontier Town-Missouri, Inc., 107 S.W.3d 398 (Mo.Ct.App. 2003), relied upon by Continental and Lafarge, is inapposite. That case did not even deal with the manufactured product exemption, but instead with pleading requirements in state court to enforce statutory liens. Equally unavailing is Kansas City Community Center v. Heritage Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1992), which dealt with parties who were not exempt from the requirements of ยง 327.181. The Blaske v. Smith Entzeroth, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1991), case, cited by Lafarge, is completely irrelevant as it deals with a state statute of repose, not the statutes at issue here.
In addition, denying leave to add the defenses would prejudice Continental Cement significantly. The failure to obtain a certificate of authority to perform architectural services provides grounds for voiding a contract as unenforceable. Mo. Rev. Stat. ยง 327.461; Kan. City Cmty. Ctr. v. Heritage Indus., Inc., 972 F.3d 185, 187-88 (8th Cir. 1992). The failure to obtain a certificate of authority to conduct business provides grounds for halting a lawsuit.
Therefore, public policy supports the plaintiff's recovery of funds paid for services performed by the unlicensed defendant. See Kansas City Com. Center v. Heritage Industries, 972 F.2d 185, 190 (8th Cir. 1992). The defendant further contends that by upholding the award of commissions to the plaintiff, it is the plaintiff who will be unjustly enriched.
Thus, it is not applicable to the purchase orders which led to the delivery of the July parts. Kansas City Cmty. Ctr. v. Heritage Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 185 (8th Cir. 1992), as cited by Tracker is easily distinguishable. There, Kansas City Community Center entered into a contract for the planning, design, and construction of a building for the total price of $477,300.
Id. at 908. Hospital Development was followed in Kansas City Community Center v. Heritage Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d. 185, 186 (8th Cir. 1992), in which a corporation which was not registered as an architect or professional engineer entered into a contract for the "design and construction" of a building. The owner sought to void the contract before construction had started because of the absence of registration.