At the top of page 79, I had asked if Ninja had the wrong answer for this question. Anna, you said you believed it did. Now I just got the same question in Gleim, and Gleim confirms our correct answer: 🙂
West, an Indiana real estate broker, misrepresented to Zimmer that West was licensed in Kansas under the Kansas statute that regulates real estate brokers and requires all brokers to be licensed. Zimmer signed a contract agreeing to pay West a 5% commission for selling Zimmer’s home in Kansas. West did not sign the contract. West sold Zimmer’s home. If West sued Zimmer for nonpayment of commission, Zimmer would be
A. Not liable to West for any amount because West violated the Kansas licensing requirements.
Answer (A) is correct.
A person who performs services without obtaining a statutorily required license may recover only if the statute is solely a revenue measure. If the legislative intent was to protect the public from incompetent work by unqualified persons, the statute is regulatory and the contract is unenforceable, even if the defendant was benefited and the work performed was satisfactory.
B. Not liable to West for any amount because West did not sign the contract.
This is the answer Ninja said was correct. Part of Gleim's explanation for why it's incorrect includes my reasoning: The contract is not subject to the statute of frauds. (It is not a contract to sell real property.) If it were, failure of West to sign would not relieve Zimmer of liability.
C. Liable to West only for the value of services rendered.
D. Liable to West for the full commission.
.