California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1605 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any benefit conferred, or agreed to be conferred, upon the promisor, by any other person, to which the promisor is not lawfully entitled, or any prejudice suffered, or agreed to be suffered, by such person, other than such as he is at the time of consent lawfully bound to suffer, as an inducement to the promisor, is a good consideration for a promise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: Ennabe v. Manosa, 319 P.3d 201 (Cal. 2014).
Ennabe v. Manosa, 319 P.3d 201 (Cal. 2014). “(Civil Code, § 1605.)[ 18 ] The buyer’s purchase price, however the seller intends to use it, is good consideration.”
Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003). “Cal. Civ. Code § 1605 . 4 The adequacy of consideration doesn’t matter, but it must be “something of real value.”
O'Byrne v. Santa Monica-Ucla Med. Ctr., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “" (Civ. Code, § 1605.) A statutory or legal obligation to perform an act may not constitute consideration for a contract.”
Melican v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” (Civ. Code, § 1605; see Estate of Bray (1964) 230 Cal.”
Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013). “Cal. Civ.Code § 1605. Doing or promising to do what one is already legally bound to do cannot be consideration for a promise.”
Steiner v. Thexton, 226 P.3d 359 (Cal. 2010). “) Civil Code section 1605 defines consideration as “[a]ny benefit conferred, or agreed to be conferred, upon the promisor, by any other person, to which the promisor is not lawfully entitled, or any prejudice suffered, or agreed to be suffered, by such person, other than such as…”
Podolsky v. First Healthcare Corp., 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7942 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “FHC contends that its promise to forebear enforcement of its discharge rights until the resident’s responsible party is given 15 days’ notice, combined with the duty to send monthly bills to the guarantor, is sufficient consideration to support the guarantee agreement. When the…”
Lawrence Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica, 998 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2021). “” (citing, inter alia, Cal. Civ. Code § 1605 )). 4 C. Application to Salisbury’s Claim The FHAA’s predicate “sale” or “rental” requirement makes short work of Salisbury’s refusal to accommodate claim.”
Niederer v. Ferreira, 189 Cal. App. 3d 1485 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987). “(Civ. Code, § 1605; Bank of Italy v. Wetzel, supra, 82 Cal.”
Malmstrom v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp., 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 180 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). “) Civil Code section 1605 provides; “Any benefit conferred, or agreed to be conferred, upon the promisor, by any other person, to which the promisor is not lawfully entitled, or any prejudice suffered, or agreed to be suffered, by such person, other than such as he is at the…”
O'Connor v. Old Repub. Sur. Co., 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6194 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “(Civ. Code, § 1605.) In this case, the requirements that the Bond be filed and approved by the court were not negotiated by Bronson and Old Republic; they were not benefits conferred by Bronson on Old Republic or inducements for Old Republic to issue the Bond.”
Coastside Fishing Club v. California Resources Agency, 38 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20023 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “” (Civ. Code, § 1605, italics added.) Appellants contend that, because the MOU “cannot be read to require DFG or the [Agency] to do anything of substance that they were not otherwise required to do by statute,” the Foundation was legally entitled to the benefits provided by the…”
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.