Cal. Codes » Civil Code

Cal. Civil Code § 1598

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc. (2000) cal · cites it 2× “We could discover no published cases in California that address directly the question of when a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to enforce an entire agreement, as the trial court did in this case, nor precisely what it means for an agreement to be "permeated" by…”
Hiq Labs, Inc. v. Linkedin Corporation (2019) ca9 “12, 2008); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1598 (“Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance .”
Hiq Labs, Inc. v. Linkedin Corporation (2022) ca9 “12, 2008); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1598 (“Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance .”
Medina v. Safe-Guard Products, International, Inc. (2008) calctapp · cites it 2× “) The appellant in this case cites three general Civil Code provisions, sections 1550, 1598, 1667, to argue that an insurance contract made with an unlicensed insurer is flat out void.”
Kashani v. TSANN KUEN CHINA ENTERPRISE CO. (2004) calctapp · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1598.) Civil Code section 1668 provides that a contract that has as its object a violation of law is “against the policy of the law.”
Citizens for Amending Proposition v. City of Pomona (2018) calctapp5d “( Civ. Code, §§ 1598, 1599.) *1189 2. Analysis The original written agreement between Regency and Pomona demonstrates that the parties intended the agreement to terminate after a period of 20 years, "unless such term is otherwise terminated, modified or extended by circumstances…”
MKB Management, Inc. v. Melikian (2010) calctapp · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1598.) 3 “ ‘Courts are to look to the various purposes of the contract.”
Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi (2008) cal “) 9 Civil Code section 1598 codifies the companion principle for when severability is infeasible: “Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part.”
San Diego City Firefighters v. Board of Administration of San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (2012) calctapp “According to established law, the object of a contract must be lawful (Civ. Code, § 1596), and “[w]here a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, .”
Blake v. Ecker (2001) calctapp ““Civil Code section 1598 states that ‘[wjhere a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void.”
Gombiner v. Swartz (2008) calctapp “) It follows that a landlord cannot, even with the tenant’s acquiescence or by mutual agreement, circumvent that which the law prohibits.”
Chiba v. Greenwald (2007) calctapp · cites it 2× “THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN DECLINING TO SEVER THE AGREEMENT "Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract…”
Show all 55 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.