California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1588 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A contract which is voidable solely for want of due consent, may be ratified by a subsequent consent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Fergus v. Songer, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
Fergus v. Songer, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” Appellants contend that the evidence is sufficient to show a ratification by respondent of the 45 percent contingency fee agreement entered into in 1995. Therefore, appellants maintain, the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the ratification.”
Black Hills Investments, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc., 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 446 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “Albertson’s contention that the summary judgment in favor of Black Hills should be reversed because Black Hills forfeited its right to void the contracts by acting in a manner that ratified the contracts following the recordation of the parcel map is unavailing because it is…”
Saret-Cook v. Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7708 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “Civil Code section 1588 provides that “[a] contract which is voidable solely for want of due consent, may be ratified by a subsequent consent.”
Burgoon v. Narconon of N. California, 125 F. Supp. 3d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “Second, even if they had, while there can be ratification through conduct, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1588 (providing that “[a] contract which is voidable solely for want to due consent, may be ratified by a subsequent consent”), that kind of ratification has limits.”
Knapp v. Ginsberg (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “The trial court concluded they could and did, because contracts that are voidable for lack of due consent may be ratified by subsequent consent (Civil Code, § 1588), and Tinker’s amended estate plans evinced that consent as a matter of law.”
Florentino Javier v. Assurance Iq, LLC (9th Cir. 2022). “While California contract law appears to allow for after-the-fact ratification, see Cal. Civ. Code § 1588 , CIPA codified the common law tort of invasion of privacy.”
ParPro Tech. v. Rogerson Kratos Corp. CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “”]; Civ. Code, § 1588 [qualified acceptance is new proposal].”
JHS Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Cnty. of Fresno CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “” (Civ. Code, § 1588.) With regard to ratification by a governmental entity, our state Supreme Court has stated, “ ‘a contract not made in the prescribed mode cannot be affirmed and ratified in disregard of that mode by any subsequent action of the corporate authorities ….”
Apexxus LLC v. OptumRx, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025). “” Cal. Civ. Code § 1588 (emphasis added). Nothing in 17 California law states that sections 1588 and 1589 preclude arguments that a contract is voidable 18 because it is unconscionable.”
Gracey v. Tiles, Webb, Kulla & Grant CA2.7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “The trial court granted summary adjudication on these causes of action on the grounds that the Owners ratified the CFA and the subsequent letter amending the CFA by their subsequent actions and because the Lease Agreement did not need to meet the requirements of Business and…”
BCS Investments v. Lorenz CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “) Furthermore, plaintiffs do not explain in any meaningful way how these arguments relate to their asserted causes of action, particularly their cause of action for rescission, which would extinguish the contract (Civ. Code, § 1588), or how their first amended complaint states…”
Boling v. DTG Operations CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “”]; Civ. Code, § 1588 [qualified acceptance is new proposal].”
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.