Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS / PART 2. CONTRACTS / TITLE 1. NATURE OF A CONTRACT / CHAPTER 3. Consent
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1577 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Mistake of fact is a mistake, not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in:

1.An unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present, material to the contract; or,

2.Belief in the present existence of a thing material to the contract, which does not exist, or in the past existence of such a thing, which has not existed.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Donovan v. RRL Corp., 27 P.3d 702 (Cal. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Donovan v. RRL Corp., 27 P.3d 702 (Cal. 2001). · cites it 6× “54 of the Restatement Second of Contracts states: "A party bears the risk of a mistake when [¶] (a) the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the parties, or [¶] (b) he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to…”
Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc., 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10743 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “” (Civ. Code, § 1577.) 29 In so concluding, we do not mean to imply that plaintiff’s evidentiary showing in opposition to summary judgment was sufficient with respect to any of the three other Donovan factors.”
Schultz v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 157 Cal. App. 3d 242 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “) As explained in the Restatement Second of Contracts section 152, comment a, "[b]efore making a contract, a party ordinarily evaluates the proposed exchange of performances on the basis of a variety of assumptions with respect to existing facts.”
Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court, 227 Cal. App. 4th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 1577.) Civil Code section 1577 speaks in terms of mistakes as to present or past facts; there is no authority for rescission based on a mistake regarding future events.”
Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2012). “Under California law, "[m]istake of fact is a mistake, not caused by the neglect of a legal duly on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in: 1) An unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present, material to the contract; or, 2) Belief in…”
Mercury Ins. v. Pearson, 169 Cal. App. 4th 1064 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “) Here, Pearson alleged in his cross-complaint that he was the prime mover in obtaining the subject insurance policy—the person who initially sought “coverage benefits for himself and his vehicles,” who communicated his intentions and needs to Vicencia and Schoensiegel, who…”
Michael Cuero v. Matthew Cate, 850 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “Finally, even if the standard permitting rescission for certain unilateral mistakes of fact applied here, rescission is not available to a party whose mistake of fact was the result of its own negligence, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1577 , as was the government’s late “discovery” of…”
Brewer v. Federici, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9946 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “Brewer asserts there was no “mistake” because Federici neglected his legal duty to value the pension plans.”
Stermer v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “) California law defines a mistake of fact, in part, as an “unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present” or “[b]elief in the present existence of a thing material to the contract, which does not exist, or in the past existence of such a thing, which has not…”
Amin v. Superior Court, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1392 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, §§ 1577, 1689, subd. (b)(1).) However, even assuming the mistake-of-fact doctrine applies in the context of a criminal plea bargain, we do not believe the doctrine applies to the particular situation presented in this case.”
Hongsathavij v. Queen of Angels/Hollywood Presbyterian Med. Ctr., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “Hongsathavij admitted was a high-risk patient—was not in need of immediate attention from a physician.”
Transit Ads, Inc. v. Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd., 270 Cal. App. 2d 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “We feel that insufficient facts are alleged in the affirmative defense to support the proposition that the mistake, if any, was mutual.”
Show all 58 citing cases →
— Cal. Civil Code § 1577(1) — 1 case
United States of Am. v. S.M.R.T., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2022).
— Cal. Civil Code § 1577(2) — 1 case
United States of Am. v. S.M.R.T., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2022).
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.