Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS / PART 2. CONTRACTS / TITLE 3. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1635 (2026)

Interpretation Of Contracts

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All contracts, whether public or private, are to be interpreted by the same rules, except as otherwise provided by this Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: Citizens for Amending Proposition v. City of Pomona, 28 Cal. App. 5th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Citizens for Amending Proposition v. City of Pomona, 28 Cal. App. 5th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" ( Civ. Code, § 1635.) One such rule provides that "[a] contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.”
Binder v. Aetna Life Ins., 75 Cal. App. 4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “(Civ. Code, § 1635.) “Like words, non-verbal conduct often has different meanings to different people.”
Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers' Mut. Ins., 855 P.2d 1263 (Cal. 1993). · cites it 2× “) The parties to a contract can define "claim" any way they want. Here, they defined it without reference to the rules of civil pleading.”
Amelco Elec. v. City of Thousand Oaks, 38 P.3d 1120 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “Civil Code section 1635 is also relevant.”
Kashmiri v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 156 Cal. App. 4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” (Civ. Code, § 1635.) B. Determining Whether the Promise Regarding the PDF Was a Term of the Implied-in-fact Contract The University emphasizes that courts in various jurisdictions have uniformly held that colleges can reserve the right to increase tuition.”
Retired Employees Ass'n of Orange Cnty. v. Cnty. of Orange, 266 P.3d 287 (Cal. 2011). “(Civ. Code, § 1635; see also M. F. Kemper Const.”
Brian A. Buckley v. C.A. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2006). “Here the California Superior Court not only failed to apply state contract law properly but failed to apply it at all. Its decision, therefore, is unquestionably contrary to clearly established federal law.”
California Teachers Assn. v. Cory, 155 Cal. App. 3d 494 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “" (Civ. Code, § 1635.) The Controller misreads the statute.”
Weil v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co., 866 P.2d 774 (Cal. 1994). · cites it 2× “[2] All three rules serve the same purpose, which is to ascertain and give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting. (Civ.”
Alameda Cnty. Flood Control & Water Conservation Dist. v. Dep't of Water Resources, 213 Cal. App. 4th 1163 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “) But in California, public contracts normally are interpreted by the same rules as private contracts (Civ. Code, § 1635; see Ribeiro v. County of El Dorado (2011) 195 Cal.”
Camacho v. Target Corp., 24 Cal. App. 5th 291 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). “Camacho contends that Addendum A is, at best, ambiguous with respect to whether it covers, and thereby releases, nonworkers' compensation claims, such as Camacho's civil discrimination and harassment claims.”
Orange Cove Irrigation Dist. v. L. Molinos Mut. Water Co., 30 Cal. App. 5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). “) 'The mutual intention to which the courts give effect is *13 determined by objective manifestations of the parties' intent, including the words used in the agreement, as well as extrinsic evidence of such objective matters as the surrounding circumstances under which the…”
Show all 47 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.