In Wilson v. Kealakekua Ranch, Ltd., 57 Haw. 124, 551 P.2d 525 (1976), Wilson was an architect who had been previously licensed but was unlicensed at the time of his services solely because of his failure to pay the $ 15 annual renewal fee for two years. Notwithstanding the illegality of his services, Wilson sued for the value of his architectural and engineering services. The Hawaii Supreme Court held that: While the provisions of the statute requiring initial registration are clearly designed to protect the public from unfit and incompetent practitioners of architecture, we think that the provision requiring renewal, with which Wilson failed to comply, is purely for the purpose of raising revenues. . . . . . . We do not believe that the legislature intended unenforceability in addition to the penal sanctions of 464-14, 4 since unenforceability would result in a forfeiture wholly out of proportion to the requirements of public policy or appropriate individual punishment. . . . While the public has a legitimate interest in assuming the collection of revenues, we think that the penal sanctions in the instant case are more than adequate to secure that interest. Additional punishment, especially a disproportionate forfeiture, is not justified and could not have been intended by the legislature. 57 Haw. at 130-32, 551 P.2d at 529-30. In Wilson, the only impediment to Wilson's right to sue was his two-year failure to pay a $ 15 annual license renewal fee, Wilson was subject to a criminal penalty for performing architectural services without a license, and unlike the unlicensed contractor situations covered by HRS 444-22, no statute precluded recovery on the basis of the reasonable value of the work done.