California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1636 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 917 cases (266 in the last 5 years), 1931–2026 · leading case: Safeco Ins. of Am. v. Robert S., 28 P.3d 889 (Cal. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Safeco Ins. of Am. v. Robert S., 28 P.3d 889 (Cal. 2001). · cites it 6× “(Civ. Code, § 1636; Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc.”

Nedlloyd Lines B v. v. Superior Court, 834 P.2d 1148 (Cal. 1992). · cites it 6× “" (Civ. Code, § 1636.) In contrast to this legislative command, the majority conclusively presumes that choice-of-law clauses entered into between or among commercial entities apply to related noncontractual causes of action regardless of whether the intent of the parties or the…”

Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 900 P.2d 619 (Cal. 1995). · cites it 4× “(Civ. Code, § 1636.) Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract.”

Hess v. Ford Motor Co., 41 P.3d 46 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 4× “, § 1639), "[a] contract may be explained by reference to the circumstances under which it was made, and the matter to which it relates" ( id., § 1647). "However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things which it appears that the parties intended to…”

Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 869 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “2008) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 1636 ). Where possible, the courts should determine the mutual intention of the parties “solely from the written provisions of the insurance policy.”

Mountain Air Enters., LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, 398 P.3d 556 (Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “( Civ. Code, § 1636.) Our initial inquiry is confined to the writing alone.”

People v. Shelton, 125 P.3d 290 (Cal. 2006). · cites it 2× “(Civ.Code, § 1636.) If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.”

Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 833 P.2d 545 (Cal. 1992). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1636.) If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.”

Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008). “3d at 1213 ; see Cal. Civ. Code § 1636 . Clear, explicit, and unambiguous contractual language governs.”

Badie v. Bank of Am., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8189 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1636.) Instead, it simply stated that “the word ‘terms’ is not, as plaintiffs argue, limited purely to price terms for already existing services,” and that the Bank had the ability “to modify any of the relevant terms of the contract.”

Teamsters, Local 396 v. Nasa Servs., Inc., 957 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Civ. Code § 1636 . “When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible .”

E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 84 P.3d 385 (Cal. 2004). · cites it 2× “(Civ.Code, § 1636.) Such intent is to be inferred, if possible, solely from the written provisions of the contract.”

Show all 917 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.