California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1635 (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, 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, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 750 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018).
Citizens for Amending Proposition v. City of Pomona, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 750 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “" ( 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., 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1103 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “(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). “) 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). “Civil Code section 1635 is also relevant.”
Kashmiri v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 635 (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., Inc. 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, Dir. of the California Dep't of Corr., 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, 5 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1417 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “" (Civ. Code, § 1635.) The Controller misreads the statute.”
Weil v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co., 866 P.2d 774 (Cal. 1994). “[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, 43 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20038 (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., 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 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., 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 283 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 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…”
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.