California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1639 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible; subject, however, to the other provisions of this Title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 318
cases (100 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008).
Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008). “]" Cal. Civ.Code § 1639. California law holds that "even if the trial court personally finds the document not to be ambiguous, it should preliminarily consider all credible evidence to ascertain the intent of the parties.”
Villacres v. Abm Indus. Inc., 189 Cal. App. 4th 562 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “) That intent is to be determined solely from the written provisions of the contract if possible (Civ. Code, § 1639; Bank of the West , at p.”
Helm Fin. Corp. v. Iowa N. Ry. Co., 214 F. Supp. 2d 934 (N.D. Iowa 2002). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1639; see also Brinton v.”
Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “(Civ. Code, § 1639 [“[w]hen a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing alone, if possible .”
Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 2009). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1639. “[I]f reasonably practicable” a contract must be interpreted as a whole, “so as to give effect to every part, .”
Jeremy Revitch v. Directv, LLC, 977 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2020). “7 California Civil Code § 1638 provides: “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”
Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5101 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “(Civ. Code, § 1639.) “The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense.”
City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 914 P.2d 160 (Cal. 1996). “” (Civ. Code, § 1639, italics added.) “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”
Sony Comput. Ent. Am., Inc. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 532 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2008). “3d 1205 (citing Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1639, 1644, 1638). If the contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.”
Teamsters, Local 396 v. Nasa Servs., Inc., 957 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2020). “See CAL. CIV. CODE § 1639. Even so, the district court’s findings derived from that evidence were clearly erroneous.”
United Nat'l Ins. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2009). “Cal. Civ.Code § 1639. The written provisions should be examined “together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable.”
Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equip. Co., 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 649 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “Throughout Article V's alternative dispute provisions, the CBA refers to the grievance or dispute of an individual employee, not a group of employees: Paragraph 501 states, "An individual employee having a grievance or dispute shall first attempt to adjust said grievance or…”
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.