transaction void. The Florida court disagreed, and concluded that an illegal agreement for real estate brokerage services, by itself, does not require rescission of the entire contract. The court reasoned, “[T]he illegal brokerage service portion of the contract does not go to the essence of the agreement — a multimillion dollar sale of real estate. If the broker service agreement is severed, the agreement for the sale of real estate is still wholly supported by valid legal consideration.” United Nat’l Bank v. Airport Plaza Ltd. P’ship, supra, 537 So.2d at 610. Similarly, courts in other jurisdictions have upheld the validity of underlying contracts, even where services were performed in violation of licensing statutes. Wilson v. Kealakekua Ranch, Ltd., 57 Haw. 124, 551 P.2d 525 (1976)(<HOLDING>); McKenna v. Peddle Land Devs., 229 A.2d 332
holding that mutuality of obligation is essential for contracts based on mutual promises and that a contract is unenforceable where a party is free to perform or not perform the contract holding that an architects violation of a licensing statute did not render the contract to perform architectural services void and unenforceable holding that architects violation of licensing statute did not render contract to perform architectural services void and unenforceable inasmuch as statute which provided for penal sanctions but was silent with respect to enforceability of contracts of its violators could not be interpreted as intending forfei ture of fees for services wholly out of proportion to the requirements of public policy extent of harm and moral quality of conduct of parties holding physicians covenants not to compete are unenforceable and void as a matter of public policy holding that a contract to sell real property was unenforceable because it did not contain a sufficient description of land subject to contract