The want of performance of an obligation, or of an offer of performance, in whole or in part, or any delay therein, is excused by the following causes, to the extent to which they operate:
1.When such performance or offer is prevented or delayed by the act of the creditor, or by the operation of law, even though there may have been a stipulation that this shall not be an excuse; however, the parties may expressly require in a contract that the party relying on the provisions of this paragraph give written notice to the other party or parties, within a reasonable time after the occurrence of the event
excusing performance, of an intention to claim an extension of time or of an intention to bring suit or of any other similar or related intent, provided the requirement of such notice is reasonable and just;
2.When it is prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary; or,
3.When the debtor is induced not to make it, by any act of the creditor intended or naturally tending to have that effect, done at or before the time at which such performance or offer may be made, and not rescinded before that time.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Fin. Cas. & Sur., Inc., 10 Cal. App. 5th 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
“But that is of no consequence, even under the contract doctrine of impossibility (Civ. Code, § 1511) that the surety in this case invokes.”
Hines v. Lukes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 1174 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“Lukes argues further that Hines prevented her performance by refusing to provide his written consent, as the property owner, to resurface the driveway.”
Harvey v. Bank of Am., N.A., 906 F. Supp. 2d 982 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff avers that this provision of the DOT conflicts with California Civil Code sections 1511 and 1512.”
Greg Opinski Constr., Inc. v. City of Oakdale, 199 Cal. App. 4th 1107 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “A questionable *1117 application of an obscure provision of California Civil Code Section 1511 was employed to justify the court’s refusal to give effect to this express condition.”
People v. Tingcungco, 237 Cal. App. 4th 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“As noted, the Legislature considered an amendment to subdivision (g) that would have allowed for such tolling, but instead adopted subdivision (h), which, as we read it, allows tolling only after the prosecutor has decided to extradite but needs more time to do so.”
ITT Telecom Prods. Corp. v. Dooley, 214 Cal. App. 3d 307 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
“Dooley does not argue that his alleged breach of contract is excused because his performance was prevented by operation of law (Civ. Code, § 1511) or that the nondisclosure agreement is unenforceable because its object or the consideration is illegal.”
Van De Kamp v. Gumbiner, 221 Cal. App. 3d 1260 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
“(Civ. Code, § 1511.) That argument misses the point.”
Erich v. Granoff, 109 Cal. App. 3d 920 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
“) 4 Civil Code section 1511 provides: “The want of performance of an obligation, or of an offer of performance, in whole or in part, or any delay therein, is excused by the following causes, to the extent to which they operate: “1.”
In Re Consol. Pretrial Proceedings in Air West, 436 F. Supp. 1281 (N.D. Cal. 1977).
“, Cal.Civ.Code §§ 1511, 1512. That the same actions upon which Trustees rely to defeat Summa’s claim of performance— coercion on the closing—would also support a claim for restitution, in no way affects Trustees’ claim for breach of contract.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1511(1) — 4 cases
— Cal. Civil Code § 1511(2) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.