California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1622 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
All contracts may be oral, except such as are specially required by statute to be in writing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Felix v. Zlotoff, 90 Cal. App. 3d 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
Felix v. Zlotoff, 90 Cal. App. 3d 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). “Code, § 1621) or implied in law contract (quasi contracts) (see 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal.”
DC3 Ent., LLC v. John Galt Ent., Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1622 (West 2006). Thus, whether assignments may be unwritten on these facts or not (and it is assumed that they can be), an *1148 implied-in-fact contract that contains a transfer of rights as consideration certainly may be unwritten — indeed the very nature of…”
Pfeifer v. United States Shoe Corp., 676 F. Supp. 969 (C.D. Cal. 1987). “Statute of Frauds Cal.Civil Code, § 1622 provides that all contracts may be oral, except those that are specifically required by California statute to be in writing.”
Beta Sigma Tau v. Shrine Civic Auditorium, 323 P.2d 496 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958). “00 to complete the contract.” Mr. McMeekin said: “Sorry, it was too late-.”
Miles v. Gernstein (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). “” (Civ. Code, § 1622.) In her reply, Miles identifies what is and is not at issue in this appeal as follows: “the substantial evidence standard [has no] place in this Court’s review.”
Miles v. Gerstein (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). “” (Civ. Code, § 1622.) In her reply, Miles identifies what is and is not at issue in this appeal as follows: “the substantial evidence standard [has no] place in this Court’s review.”
Pars Publ'g Corp. v. Ordway Corp. CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “(Civ. Code, § 1622; Westside Estate Agency, Inc.”
(SS) Lor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2019). “) True, California law does not require a written document to support a 15 loan agreement (see Cal. Civ. Code § 1622 ), but the law does place the burden on Plaintiff to 16 submit some evidence to support her argument that $1500 in her account came from a loan.”
Roat v. California Exposition & State Fair (E.D. Cal. 2020). “6 ; Cal. Civ. Code § 1622 . “The essential elements of a 20 contract are: [1] parties capable of contracting; [2] the parties' consent; [3] a lawful object; and 21 [4] sufficient cause or consideration.”
AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Yeager (E.D. Cal. 2020). “6; Cal. Civ. Code § 1622 . Mutual assent to a contract is 6 determined under an objective standard applied to the outward manifestations of the parties, “i.”
(PS) Yeager v. Parsons Behle & Latimer (E.D. Cal. 2020). “6; Cal. Civ. Code § 1622 . Mutual assent to a contract is 6 determined under an objective standard applied to the outward manifestations of the parties, “i.”
Caiman Consulting v. Infosys Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “5, 13 2018); Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1622 , 1644. Thus, plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a contract, 14 (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting 15 damages to the plaintiff.”
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.