Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. v. Walker Adjustment Bureau
198 Colo. 444, 601 P.2d 1369, 1979 Colo. LEXIS 768 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a conflict of laws analysis for a contract for services, the law of the state where the services are to be performed presumptively governs the contract's validity. This presumption is only overcome if another state, under the principles of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, has a more significant relationship to the transaction and the parties.
Facts:
- Fred Gagnon, a California resident, contracted with Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. (Wood), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado.
- The contract was for Gagnon to perform rough carpentry work on an apartment complex Wood was constructing in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
- Negotiations for the contract took place in California, Colorado, and New Mexico, with the final contract being signed in Colorado.
- Gagnon commenced work on the project in New Mexico before the contract was formally signed.
- Shortly after work began, New Mexico officials ordered construction to be halted because Gagnon did not possess a New Mexico contractor's license as required by state law.
- As a result, Wood cancelled its contract with Gagnon and refused to pay him for the work performed.
Procedural Posture:
- Walker Adjustment Bureau, as Gagnon's assignee, brought suit against Wood Bros. Homes, Inc. in a Colorado trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Wood, ruling that New Mexico law applied and barred the action.
- Walker, the plaintiff, appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that Colorado law applied and the contract was enforceable.
- Wood, the defendant-appellant, was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the law of the state where construction services were performed (New Mexico), which invalidates the contract due to the contractor's lack of a license, govern the dispute, even though the contract was signed in another state (Colorado) whose law would permit enforcement?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hodges
Yes. The law of New Mexico, the state of performance, governs the contract's validity. The court formally adopts the 'most significant relationship' approach from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for contract actions, abandoning the inflexible traditional rules. Under Restatement §196, for service contracts, there is a presumption that the law of the state where the services are to be rendered applies. Here, the services were performed in New Mexico. While Colorado has a general policy interest in validating contracts, New Mexico has a strong, specific public policy interest in regulating its construction industry and protecting its citizens from unlicensed contractors, as evidenced by its comprehensive licensing act. New Mexico's interest in applying its invalidating rule outweighs Colorado's interest in protecting the parties' contractual expectations, so the presumption is not rebutted and New Mexico law applies, barring the action.
Analysis:
This case officially adopts the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for contract cases in Colorado, shifting away from rigid, traditional choice-of-law rules. The decision establishes that a state's specific, strong public policy, such as consumer protection through professional licensing, can outweigh another state's more general interest in enforcing contracts. This precedent requires courts to perform a qualitative analysis of competing state interests, making the outcome of conflict-of-law cases more dependent on the substance of the underlying policies rather than geographical technicalities like the place of signing.
