California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1580 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Consent is not mutual, unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense. But in certain cases defined by the Chapter on Interpretation, they are to be deemed so to agree without regard to the fact.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 444 P.3d 97 (Cal. 2019).
Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 444 P.3d 97 (Cal. 2019). “] An essential element of any contract is 'consent.' [Citations.”
Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “” (Civ. Code, § 1580; see also Civ. Code, § 1636 [contracts must be enforced according to the “mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting.”
T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court, 682 P.2d 338 (Cal. 1984). “" (Civ. Code, § 1580.) "The existence of mutual consent is determined by objective rather than subjective criteria, the test being what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.”
Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc., 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “” (Civ. Code, § 1580; see also §§ 1550, 1565.”
Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings CA4/3, 218 Cal. App. 4th 50 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “] If there is no evidence establishing a manifestation of assent to the ‘same thing’ by both parties, then there is no mutual consent to contract and no contract formation.”
Fair v. Bakhtiari, 147 P.3d 653 (Cal. 2006). “] [¶] `The existence of mutual consent is determined by objective rather than subjective criteria, the test being what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.' [Citation.] Outward manifestations thus govern the finding of mutual consent…”
Kum Tat Ltd. v. Linden Ox Pasture, LLC, 845 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017). “3d 692, 698 (2006) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 1580 ). The district court did not clearly err in interpreting Kum Tat’s “review and approve” clause in its counter-offer and its subsequent request for a $500,000 price reduction as showing an absence of mutual consent, rather than…”
Lindsay v. Lewandowski, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4665 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “2d 265 ; Civ.Code, § 1580 ["Consent is not mutual, unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense"]; Civ.”
Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013). “3d 692 (2006) (quoting Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1580, 1550, 1565). Second, “[u]nder California law, a contract will be enforced if it is sufficiently definite .”
Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 983 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1580; Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc.”
Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Med. Grp., 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8323 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). ““One of the essential elements of a contract is the consent of the parties.”
Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, 206 Cal. App. 4th 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “; Civ. Code, §§ 1580, 1636.) “ ‘The existence of mutual consent is determined by objective rather than subjective criteria, the test being what the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.”
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.