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

Cal. Civil Code § 1578 (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 law constitutes a mistake, within the meaning of this Article, only when it arises from:

1.A misapprehension of the law by all parties, all supposing that they knew and understood it, and all making substantially the same mistake as to the law; or,

2.A misapprehension of the law by one party, of which the others are aware at the time of contracting, but which they do not rectify.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Dowling v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 208 Cal. App. 4th 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dowling v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 208 Cal. App. 4th 685 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “(Civ. Code, § 1578; Hedging Concepts, supra, at p.”
Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, 116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “9 Defendants submitted no evidence to support their alternative claim the mistake was unilateral on their part because Harris was aware of the 1996 amendment when he negotiated the settlement with defendants.”
Stermer v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “” (Civ. Code, § 1578, subd. 1.) Stermer suggests that the stipulation was based on the fact of the conviction and its legal consequences, which fact and law were deemed never to have existed by virtue of the vacation of that conviction.”
People v. Super.Ct. (Sanchez), 223 Cal. App. 4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “) A mistake of law is, as applied here, “[a] misapprehension of the law by all parties, all supposing that they knew and understood it, and all making substantially the same mistake as to the law .”
Michael Cuero v. Matthew Cate, 850 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1578 , 1689(b)(1). 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.”
Larsen v. Johannes, 7 Cal. App. 3d 491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). “91 ], involving a release) or arose from an unrectified misrepresentation of which the other was aware (Civ. Code, § 1578; Los Angeles City School Dist.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 877 (W.D. Pa. 2015). “Cal. Civ.Code § 1578. However, the other requirement for finding a unilateral mistake of law-is that the other side-knows the correct law but does not rectify the other party’s misunderstanding.”
Los Angeles City Sch. Dist. v. Landier Inv. Co., 177 Cal. App. 2d 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960). “50, 227 ]); thus, it must be established that the mistake of law was mutual or arose from a misrepresentation of the law by one party of which the other was aware but did not rectify (Civ. Code, § 1578). As to the changes in the law which are said to control, the amendments to…”
Guthrie v. Times-Mirror Co., 51 Cal. App. 3d 879 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975). “2 Civil Code section 1578 provides: “Mistake of law constitutes a mistake, within the meaning of this Article, only when it arises from: “1.”
Williams v. City of Los Angeles, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3477 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “Otherwise, the court’s statement is not supported by substantial evidence.”
Azadpour v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 285 F. App'x 454 (9th Cir. 2008). “9(b) (requiring fraud to be pled with particularity); see also Cal. Civ.Code § 1578 (establishing elements of constructive fraud under California law).”
Hollywood Foreign Press Ass'n v. Red Zone Capital Partners II, 870 F. Supp. 2d 881 (C.D. Cal. 2012). “As dcp contends, the evidence shows that both parties understood the contract to grant eight specified options and additional options beyond 2005 in the event dcp procured extensions, renewals, substitutions or modifications of the NBC deal.”
Show all 26 citing 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.