## Facts

- Robert Michael Hayes brought his 1964 Jaguar sedan to Larry Don Bennett’s auto repair shop, The European Stable, for repairs.
- The parties orally agreed on prices for specified work, including front brake repair, a radio, and lubrication, but Bennett did not provide Hayes a written estimate before beginning work.
- When Hayes returned to pick up the car, Bennett stated the vehicle was inoperable due to rear brake issues; Hayes verbally authorized additional rear brake repair for an agreed amount.
- Hayes did not receive or sign a detailed written description of the work until the car was later delivered, at which point Bennett billed Hayes $500.
- Bennett never provided the written estimated price and obtained written consent before repairs, as required by California Business and Professions Code § 9884.9(a).
- Hayes refused to pay; Bennett sued for breach of contract and recovery of an agreed price.
- The municipal court entered judgment for Hayes on the ground that the repair agreement was illegal and unenforceable due to noncompliance with § 9884.9(a).

## Issues

1. Whether an automobile repair dealer’s failure to provide a written estimate and obtain written authorization under Business and Professions Code § 9884.9(a) makes the repair agreement illegal and unenforceable, barring recovery for the work performed.
2. Whether the dealer may obtain noncontract relief (including quantum meruit) despite noncompliance, where such a theory was not adequately raised or developed at trial.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Hayes.
- The court held that failure to comply with § 9884.9(a)’s written-estimate and written-authorization requirements renders the repair contract illegal and unenforceable.
- Because the contract was illegal, Bennett was barred from recovering the contract price for the repairs performed.
- The court did not grant equitable or quasi-contract recovery where the dealer failed to properly preserve and support such a claim in the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- A contract formed or performed in violation of a consumer-protection statute may be treated as illegal and unenforceable when enforcement would defeat the statute’s protective purpose.
- Under the Automotive Repair Act, an automotive repair dealer must provide a written estimated price for labor and parts and obtain the customer’s written consent before performing repairs required by § 9884.9(a).
- Courts may refuse to enforce claims for payment when enforcement would weaken statutory deterrence against prohibited practices in regulated transactions.
- A party seeking quantum meruit or other noncontract recovery generally must timely raise and support that theory in the trial court.

## Conclusion

The court held that an auto repair dealer who performs work without providing the statutorily required written estimate and obtaining written authorization cannot enforce the repair agreement and is barred from recovering the agreed price, and it affirmed judgment for the customer.


Bennett v. Hayes, 53 Cal. App. 3d 700 (Ct. App. 1975)