California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1566 (2026)
Consent
✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A consent which is not free is nevertheless not absolutely void, but may be rescinded by the parties, in the manner prescribed by the Chapter on Rescission.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Masters v. San Bernardino Cnty. Employees Ret. Ass'n, 32 Cal. App. 4th 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995).
Masters v. San Bernardino Cnty. Employees Ret. Ass'n, 32 Cal. App. 4th 30 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). “Civil Code section 1566 provides that consent to a contract is voidable when obtained by, among other things, fraud.”
Hayes Child. Leasing Co. v. NCR Corp., 37 Cal. App. 4th 775 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). “(Civ. Code, § 1566.) NCR answered the complaint, but thereafter moved to compel arbitration of the claims, citing paragraph 19 of the Universal Agreement: “19.”
Chase Inv. Servs. Corp. v. Law Offices of Jon Divens & Assocs., LLC, 748 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “Cal. Civ.Code § 1566 *1171 (where consent to a contract is obtained by duress, the contract is voidable by the coerced party, but not automatically void); see 1 Wit-kin, Summary of California Law: Contracts § 310, p.”
Podlasky v. Price, 196 P.2d 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948). “” (Civ. Code, § 1566.) One of the factors which prevents the exercise of free will in entering into an agreement is fraud in the inducement whereby the consent is procured.”
Turner v. Turner, 334 P.2d 1011 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959). “It follows that the consent given by plaintiff was not free and voluntary; it was not the consent required by section 56.”
Thompson Crane & Trucking Co. v. Eyman, 267 P.2d 1043 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954). ““may be rescinded” under the rules prescribed for a rescission (Civ. Code, § 1566) this was not an action for a rescission, the claims of the respective parties being presented in response to the complaint in intervention, and the technical requirements of rescission are not…”
Chakmak v. H. J. Lucas Masonry, Inc., 55 Cal. App. 3d 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). “Code, §§ 1565, 1567) and a consent that is not mutual because the parties did not agree upon the same thing in the same sense (Civ.”
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Maio, 736 F. Supp. 1039 (N.D. Cal. 1989). “Cal.Civ.Code §§ 1566 and 1567. Accordingly, under D’Oench, this is not a defense to enforcement of the note.”
Lloyd v. Williams, 227 Cal. App. 2d 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964). “(Civ. Code, § 1566; City of Oakland v. California Constr.”
Tran v. Nguyen, 97 Cal. App. 5th 523 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “Civil Code sections 1566, 1567, and 1570 establish a right to rescission in cases in which a person’s consent to a transaction was obtained by “menace”: threats of confinement, of unlawful violence to the person or his or her property, or of injury to a person’s character.”
Wald v. Martin, No. B335960 (Cal. Ct. App. June 16, 2025). “) 6 Menacing-Duress “Civil Code sections 1566, 1567, and 1570 establish a right to rescission in cases in which a person’s consent to a transaction was obtained by ‘menace’: threats of confinement, of unlawful violence to the person or his or her property, or of injury to a…”
Safari v. Fusco, No. G065288 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2026). “The complaint alleged only that Defendants’ actions violated those Penal Code sections; the complaint does not allege the extortion cause of action is being brought pursuant to them.”
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.