California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1637 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties to a contract, if otherwise doubtful, the rules given in this Chapter are to be applied.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1942–2026 · leading case: Jeremy Revitch v. Directv, LLC, 977 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2020).
Jeremy Revitch v. Directv, LLC, 977 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2020). “” Cal. Civ. Code § 1637 (emphasis added). Thus, under California law, the absurd- results canon comes into play only if there is ambiguity.”
Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Mfg. Co., 128 P.2d 665 (Cal. 1942). “’ ’ The correlation of this express reference to the duration of the agreement pursuant to the scheme for the marketing of the presses with the language measuring the rights, duties and obligations of the parties with respect to the agreed terms of sale and purchase contained in…”
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Sequoia Ins., 211 Cal. App. 3d 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “” Civil Code section 1637 provides, “For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties to a contract, if otherwise doubtful, the rules given in this Chapter are to be applied.”
Jamieson v. City Council of Carpinteria, 204 Cal. App. 4th 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “(Civ. Code, § 1637; Pendleton v. Ferguson (1940) 15 Cal.”
Am. Econ. Ins. v. Reboans, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 875 (N.D. Cal. 1994). “” Cal.Civ.Code § 1637 (Deering 1971). If the language is ambiguous or involves an absurdity, courts interpret the language “in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it.”
Sonoma Falls Developers, LLC v. Nevada Gold & Casinos, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “See Cal. Civ. Code § 1637 (noting that the proceeding rules, including section 1642, are to be applied “[f]or the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties to a contract, if otherwise doubtful”).”
Falkenstein v. Popper, 183 P.2d 707 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947). ““The meaning of plain and ordinary words in common use is a question of law for the court.”
Subaru of Am., Inc. v. Putnam Auto., Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “) Putnam nevertheless points to statements in the arbitrator’s choice of law order that supposedly demonstrate the arbitrator’s belief that the Satellite Service Agreement and the Burlingame Dealer Agreement were not separate contracts.”
Ahern v. Asset Mgmt. Consultants (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “) 15 Civil Code section 1637 provides, “For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties to a contract, if otherwise doubtful, the rules given in this Chapter are to be applied.”
Morillo Constr. v. L.A. Cmty. Coll. Dist. CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “(Civ. Code, § 1637.) “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”
R & J Sheet Metal v. Joseph Karscig CA2/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “” 6Civil Code section 1637 provides: “For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties to a contract, if otherwise doubtful, the rules given in this Chapter are to be applied.”
Hageman v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc. (9th Cir. 2026). “This is because California Civil Code § 1637 requires a court to find that “the intention of the parties to a contract” is “doubtful” before looking to other principles.”
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.