In Mickelson Concrete Co. v. Contractors' State License Bd, the plaintiff construction contractor poured a concrete slab. After completion, the owner discovered defects in the slab. The plaintiff attempted to cure the cracked, uneven slab by pouring over it. the result was worse but the plaintiff would not repair the slab. the slab was repaired by someone else at an additional cost. At the Board administrative hearing, the judge determined that the plaintiff's work did not meet accepted trade standards. The superior court and Court of Appeal upheld findings that the plaintiff had violated sections 7109 and 7113. the Mickelson court "held that a contractor's failure to take corrective action to make an ostensibly completed construction project an acceptable one that met trade standards was a violation of section 7113." ( Viking Pools, Inc. v. Maloney, supra, 48 Cal. 3d at p. 608.) Acknowledging that there need not be a "willful" failure to complete the construction project in question, the Mickelson court concluded the record supported a section 7113 violation based on the following findings: "Mickelson agreed to construct the slab for a specified price, that the work which he did was unacceptable and did not meet trade standards, and that he failed to take appropriate corrective action after being repeatedly requested to do so." ( Mickelson Concrete Co. v. Contractors' State License Bd., supra, 95 Cal. App. 3d at p. 635.) In Viking Pools, Inc. v. Maloney, Viking Pools, Inc., supplied and installed a pool. Three years later, while under warranty, the pool surface began to spot and blister from contaminants in the materials used to manufacture the pool. When notified of the problem, Viking refused to correct the problem. An administrative judge found Viking in violation of section 7113, and the Board issued a citation for the violation. the California Supreme Court held in Viking "that Viking's breach of an express, written warranty is an abandonment of, and a material failure to complete, a construction project or operation within the meaning of sections 7107 and 7113. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal." ( Viking Pools, Inc. v. Maloney, supra, 48 Cal. 3d at p. 609.)