or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference to each other. What is clear in one statute may be called in aid to explain what is doubtful in another.” HRS § 1-16 (1993). Beneficial Hawaii argues that HRS § 454-8, see supra note 1, does not apply to all contracts between a mortgage broker and a borrower, but, rather, only to “brokerage contracts,” the statute’s object being to preclude unlicensed brokers from claiming brokerage fees from borrowers. Beneficial Hawaii points out that the legislative history of the statute suggests that, in enacting HRS ch. 454, the legislature was motivated by concerns regarding abusive mortgage brokerage activities resulting in excessive brokerage charges. However, by aza Limited Partnership, 537 So.2d 608, 610-11 (Fla.Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). The Wilson court observed that “[t]he fact
holding that in action to enforce note and mortgage by mortgagee which performed brokerage services as part of agreement with mortgagor mortgagees failure to obtain brokers license in violation of statute invalidating unlicensed peisons contracts for commission did not render entire real estate transaction void holding that when neither real estate brokers licensing statute nor its legislative history indicated that legislature intended unenforeeability of unlicensed brokers commission agreement broker was entitled to retain commission paid recognizing implied private action for violation of the real estate brokers and salesmen license act holding brokers were not entitled to commission where agreement provided commission was payable at closing of real estate transaction because brokers did not produce clients that closed holding unenforceable a real estate contract that provided for the payment of brokerage fees to an unlicensed corporation