California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1585 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An acceptance must be absolute and unqualified, or must include in itself an acceptance of that character which the proposer can separate from the rest, and which will conclude the person accepting. A qualified acceptance is a new proposal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: J.B.B. Inv. Partners Ltd. v. Fair, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019).
J.B.B. Inv. Partners Ltd. v. Fair, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “( Civ. Code, § 1585.) The undisputed evidence in the record shows the following.”
Flintco Pac., Inc. v. TEC Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 1 Cal. App. 5th 727 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “2 ; Civ. Code, § 1585 [“A qualified acceptance is a new proposal”].”
Coleman Eng'g Co. v. North Am. Aviation, Inc., 420 P.2d 713 (Cal. 1966). “The majority opinion applies the "essential element" test, long used exclusively to determine the enforceability of agreements to agree, not to determine the enforceability of such an agreement, but to hold that agreement on new terms was a condition precedent to plaintiff…”
Roth v. Malson, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8066 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “) Consent must be free, mutual and "Communicated by each to the other.”
Smith v. Westland Life Ins., 539 P.2d 433 (Cal. 1975). “However, application of strict contract principles, relied upon by the trial court in the case at bench, to the effect that a qualified acceptance constitutes a rejection of the original offer (Civ. Code § 1585; 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal.”
Landberg v. Landberg, 24 Cal. App. 3d 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972). “Defendant also contends that in any event plaintiff is estopped by his conduct from avoiding the contract. Offer and Acceptance In considering defendant’s contention with respect to her acceptance of plaintiff’s offer we reiterate certain basic principles of the law of contract…”
Siegel v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “The parties disagree over whether the terms contained in plaintiffs’ October 19, 2001, letter differ in substance from those set forth in defendants’ later letter of October 26, 2001 (and accompanying outline), such that there was no unequivocal acceptance of an offer and, thus,…”
Bias v. Wright, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11203 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “) Civil Code section 1585 provides in part: “An acceptance must be absolute and unqualified, or must include in itself an acceptance of that character which the proposer can separate from the rest, and which will conclude the person accepting. A qualified acceptance is a new…”
Lawrence Block Co. v. Palston, 266 P.2d 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954). “(Civ. Code, § 1585; Hunkins-Willis Co. v. Los Angeles etc.”
Mikels v. Rager, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5594 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “(Civ. Code, § 1585; Converse v. Fong (1984) 159 Cal.”
Kahn v. Lischner, 275 P.2d 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954). “(Civ. Code, § 1585.) An acceptance, to result in the formation of a binding contract, must meet exactly and precisely the terms proposed in the offer; and if something different is made a condition of the alleged acceptance there is no meeting of the minds and no contract…”
Apablasa v. Merritt & Co., 176 Cal. App. 2d 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959). “840 ] ; Civ. Code, § 1585; Hunkins-Willis etc. Co.”
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.