California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1638 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 603 cases (190 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 900 P.2d 619 (Cal. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 900 P.2d 619 (Cal. 1995). · cites it 4× “(Civ. Code, § 1638; Reserve Insurance Co. v.”

Jeremy Revitch v. Directv, LLC, 977 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “2007); see also Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638 (“The language of a contract is to govern its do so on a theory that “the law [has] establishe[d] a privity, and implie[d]” a mutual “promise and obligation,” between the nonsignatory party and the signatory party against whom it seeks…”

People v. Shelton, 125 P.3d 290 (Cal. 2006). · cites it 2× “(Civ.Code, § 1638.) On the other hand, `[i]f the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it.”

Bank of the West v. Superior Court, 833 P.2d 545 (Cal. 1992). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1638.) On the other hand, "[i]f the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor *1265 believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it.”

Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 221 Cal. App. 4th 49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “) Civil Code section 1638 states, “[t]he language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”

Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008). “3d 68, 71 (2005); Cal. Civ.Code § 1638. In the event of an ambiguity, we must interpret contractual terms to “protect the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured.”

Thompson v. Asimos, 6 Cal. App. 5th 970 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “2d 545 ]; Civ. Code, § 1638.) If, on the other hand, ambiguity exists, the appellate standard of review turns on whether the trial court based its interpretation on the resolution of conflicts in the evidence.”

Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta, 640 P.2d 764 (Cal. 1982). · cites it 2× “" Because we conclude that it is not, the exclusion is inapplicable. We begin with established principles applicable to the interpretation of insurance policies.”

North Am. Capacity Ins. v. Claremont Liab. Ins., 177 Cal. App. 4th 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “(Civ. Code, §§ 1638, 1639; AIU Ins. Co. v.”

Nedlloyd Lines B v. v. Superior Court, 834 P.2d 1148 (Cal. 1992). · cites it 2× “" (Civ. Code, § 1638.) Finally, the majority's rule effectively subordinates the intent of the contracting parties to the need for predictability in commercial transactions.”

Brian A. Buckley v. C.A. Terhune, Dir. of the California Dep't of Corr., 441 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1638 , 1644. If the language in the contract is ambiguous, “it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it.”

Vandenberg v. Superior Court, 982 P.2d 229 (Cal. 1999). · cites it 2× “" (Civ.Code, §§ 1638, 1644.) If the meaning a layperson would ascribe to insurance contract language is not ambiguous, courts will apply that meaning.”

Show all 603 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.