Daggett v. Feeney
2017 Alas. LEXIS 73
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Feeney contracted with AWI, a Daggett LLC trade name, to install a wind turbine on Feeney’s Homer property; AWI allegedly misrepresented licensing status as a steel erection contractor.
- Contract required AWI to be licensed and bonded; Feeney paid a 60% down payment and construction began, later halted due to a neighboring land-use covenant.
- Superior Court found AWI needed to be registered, concluded misrepresentation supported rescission, and barred AWI’s counterclaim under AS 08.18.151; court allowed a setoff for AWI’s costs.
- Court determined the setoff was equitable but later found the setoff calculation erroneous, and remanded to recalculate AWI’s actual profit on resale.
- Final judgments assigned personal liability to Daggett and Standard Steel as successor, and this appeal concerns the license/registration issue, setoff, and party liability; Feeney cross-appealed the setoff determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was AWI required to register as a steel erection contractor? | Feeney—AWI was not registered; misrepresentation warranted rescission. | Daggetts—finished products exemption applies; AWI exempt from registration. | AWI was required to register; finished products exemption does not apply. |
| Are renewable energy contractors exempt from registration in practice? | Feeney—no practical exemption; DWIs must be registered. | Daggetts—state practice implied exemption for renewables. | No in-practice exemption; no credible State interpretation to exempt renewable energy contractors. |
| Does AS 08.18.151 bar AWI’s counterclaim for breach of contract where AWI was unregistered? | Feeney—statutory bar applies; counterclaim barred. | Daggetts—statutory bar should be construed narrowly or not apply. | AS 08.18.151 bars AWI’s counterclaim. |
| Do UCC remedies fall outside AS 08.18.151 when contractor is unregistered? | Feeney—UCC remedies available; not barred. | Daggetts—statutory bar extends to any remedies under the UCC as collection of compensation. | AS 08.18.151 bars UCC-remedy claims. |
| Is the setoff properly calculated, or must it be remanded for recalculation? | Feeney—setoff should align to avoid windfall; reconsider damages. | Daggetts—setoff based on AWI costs is allowable. | Remand for recalculation based on AWI’s actual profit; correct profit shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Industrial Power & Lighting Corp. v. Western Modular Corp., 623 P.2d 291 (Alaska 1981) (finished-products exemption analysis; installation vs. supplier distinction)
- Sumner Development Corp. v. Shivers, 517 P.2d 757 (Alaska 1974) (setoff to prevent windfall; equitable offset against owner’s damages)
- Foster v. Cross, 650 P.2d 406 (Alaska 1982) (statutory interpretation; contract rescission factors)
- Jensen v. Alaska Valuation Serv., Inc., 688 P.2d 161 (Alaska 1984) (agency/undisclosed principal liability principles)
- William P. v. Taunya P., 258 P.3d 812 (Alaska 2011) (standing and forfeiture implications under AS 08.18.151)