In King V Riedl, the Plaintiffs Claimed That the Defendant Did Not

In King v. Riedl, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant did not have the right to proceed against them for sums allegedly owed, because the contractor was not licensed as a residential home builder (as required by state law) . What was the result on appeal?

A) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the basis that the contractor was statutorily barred from bringing an action to enforce payment because he lacked a residential home builder license and the amount of the contract satisfied statutory requirements.
B) Although recognizing that the contractor's failure to be properly licensed would not in and of itself bar recovery, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs because the facts at trial showed that the contractor performed inadequate work.
C) The court ruled that because the contractor lacked the required state license and the amount of the contract satisfied statutory requirements, under common law he could only recover for expenses for materials and labor costs, not the full contract price.
D) The court ruled that the defendant could maintain an action against the plaintiffs and prevail because the proof showed that he was eligible for the required license although he had not yet obtained it.
E) The court ruled that the defendant could maintain an action against the plaintiffs and prevail because the state statute only applied when the cost of a contractual undertaking exceeded $10,000, and because the contractor billed periodically, the plaintiffs were never presented with a bill exceeding $10,000.