“Contractor” defined.

As used in this article, the term “contractor” means any person engaged in the business of constructing, altering, repairing, dismantling, or demolishing buildings, roads, bridges, viaducts, sewers, water and gas mains, streets, disposal plants, water filters, tanks and towers, airports, dams, water wells, pipelines, and every other type of structure, project, development, or improvement coming within the definition of real property or personal property including, but not limited to, constructing, altering, or repairing of property to be held either for sale or rental, and all subcontractors so engaged. History. Ga. L. 1961, p. 480, § 1; Code 1933, § 91A-6101, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 309, § 2. JUDICIAL DECISIONS When registration required. — If the corporation in question were a foreign supplier of equipment to be installed by others, the corporation would not have to register; but, if the corporation also installed the equipment in any wise, it would be liable to and subject to the nonresident contractor’s provisions. American Hosp. Supply Corp. v. Starline Mfg. Corp., 171 Ga. App. 790, 320 S.E.2d 857, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 2339 (1984). Construction of a telecommunications line fits within the definition of contracting activities under O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30. Clover Cable of Ohio, Inc. v. Heywood, 260 Ga. 341, 392 S.E.2d 855, 1990 Ga. LEXIS 266 (1990). Subcontractor’s exempt status from the sales and use tax provisions of O.C.G.A. § 48-8-63 did not confer upon the subcontractor an automatic exemption from compliance with O.C.G.A. T. 48, C. 13, A. 2. Adams v. PPT, Inc., 191 Ga. App. 729, 382 S.E.2d 732, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 781 (1989). Provider of services not exempted. — In defining the term “contractor”, O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30 does not exempt a provider of services. Adams v. PPT, Inc., 191 Ga. App. 729, 382 S.E.2d 732, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 781 (1989). Substantial compliance by contractor. — When a nonresident contractor did not comply with O.C.G.A. T. 48, C. 13, A. 2 prior to beginning the contractor’s work but, as part of the contractor’s contract with Department of Transportation (DOT), signed performance and payment bonds for 100 percent of the amount of the contract that expressly covered the payment of all state and local taxes and, prior to completion of the project, completed all steps to comply with the article, the contractor substantially complied with the article, thus, the trial court did not err in denying the DOT’s motion to dismiss the contractor’s action for additional compensation. DOT v. Moseman Constr. Co., 260 Ga. 369, 393 S.E.2d 258, 1990 Ga. LEXIS 284 (1990). Burden of proving defense of noncompliance. — Noncompliance with the Nonresident Contractors Act, O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30 et seq., is an affirmative defense asserted by the owner and, although it need not be pled, the owner has the burden of proving the elements of the defense the owner asserts. Underground Festival, Inc. v. McAfee Eng'r Co., 214 Ga. App. 243, 447 S.E.2d 683, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 849 (1994), cert. denied, No. S94C1816, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 1181 (Ga. Dec. 2, 1994). Dismissal of action not required. — Failure of business to comply with Georgia Nonresident Contractors Act, O.C.G.A. § 48-13-30 et seq., did not require dismissal of action against a corporation; the fraud claims at issue arose out of a proposed merger agreement and did not depend upon a contract to perform work in Georgia or upon the recovery of payment for performance under the contract. Infrasource, Inc. v. Hahn Yalena Corp., 272 Ga. App. 703, 613 S.E.2d 144, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 287 (2005), cert. denied, No. S05C1304, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 605 (Ga. Sept. 19, 2005). RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. 56 C.J.S., Mechanics’ Liens, §§ 82, 87 et seq.