signing a written contract. See Gannon & Son v. Emerson, 291 Md. 443, 435 A.2d 449 (1981). See also Citaramanis v. Hallowell, 328 Md. 142, 613 A.2d 964 (1992) (denying restitution, under Consumer Protection Act, of rent paid to unlicensed landlord who had not been unjustly enriched); DeReggi Constr. Co. v. Mate, 130 Md.App. 648, 747 A.2d 743 (2000) (applying substan tial compliance doctrine to permit mechanics’ lien enforcement by contractor of contract with landowners, where, at the time of contracting, contractor had no license under the Montgomery County Custom Homes Protection Act, but was licensed before work began, and where there was no actual injury to landowners); and Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Whaley, 560 F.Supp.2d 425, 429, reconsideration denied, 572 F.Supp.2d 626 (D.Md.2008) (<HOLDING>). B. Other Authorities The authors of Corbin on
holding that the first amendment does not protect the use of racial invective by a public official against a member of the public in a bar holding that bankruptcy trustee for contractor could not avoid prepetition payment of funds from contractor to subcontractors holding that application of licensing statute effective after unlicensed subcontractor entered construction agreement with contractor would impair obligations under the contract because contractor would be relieved of its obligation to pay for subcontractors services holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee holding that a subcontractors lack of a license under the act does not bar a claim for indemnity or contribution by the contractor in a suit by the homeowner against the contractor because the public policy embodied in the act and berenter is to protect the public not unlicensed contractors