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

Cal. Civil Code § 1589 (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 voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: Norcia v. Samsung Telecomm. Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norcia v. Samsung Telecomm. Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “2d 242 ; see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1589 (“A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.”
Recorded Picture Co. [Prods.] Ltd. v. Nelson Entm't, Inc., 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1741 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “) In moving for summary judgment, the producers argued that Nelson was bound by the 70/30 gross receipts provision in the producer-Hemdale agreement on five alternative grounds: (1) Civil Code section 1589, 5 (2) Nelson’s constructive knowledge of the terms of the…”
Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 116 F. Supp. 3d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 2× “150 She contends that because WB benefited from the Contract by purportedly making the Film based on the Book, it is estopped from disclaiming liabilities incurred under the Contract under California Civil Code §§ 1589 and 3521. 151 As defendants note, 152 this theory of “direct…”
Erik Knutson v. Sirius Xm Radio Inc., 771 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2014). “Code § 1589 (“A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.”). Nothing in the record, however, indicates that Sirius XM’s…”
Golden Eagle Ins. v. Foremost Ins., 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “(l)(c)); and from retention of the benefit offered (Civ. Code, § 1589; Durgin v. Kaplan, supra; McAulay v.”
Jolley v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 213 Cal. App. 4th 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “” (Civ. Code, § 1589.) The motion was actually filed on behalf of both named defendants, Chase and CRC.”
Hearn Pac. Corp. v. Second Generation Roofing, Inc., 247 Cal. App. 4th 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “1289-1292; Civ. Code, §§ 1589, 3521.) And that is true even if, like here, there is only a partial assignment of contractual rights.”
Desny v. Wilder, 299 P.2d 257 (Cal. 1956). · cites it 2× “802), Civil Code, section 1589, provides: "A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.”
Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes, 191 Cal. App. 4th 435 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “” (Civ. Code, § 1589.) The Town argues that the Developer’s acknowledgement of FAA funding and participation in matching the funding amounted to a consent to the FAA’s restrictions.”
Heppler v. J.M. Peters Co., 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6276 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “(Civ. Code, § 1589 [“A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the *1290 facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.”
Vita Plan. & Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc., 240 Cal. App. 4th 763 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “” (Civ. Code, § 1589, italics added; see Civ.”
Fogel v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 74 Cal. Rptr. 3d 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “(Civ. Code, § 1589 [“A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.”
Show all 56 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.