California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1641 (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 whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 572
cases (183 in the last 5 years), 1942–2026 · leading case: Teamsters, Local 396 v. Nasa Servs., Inc., 957 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2020).
Teamsters, Local 396 v. Nasa Servs., Inc., 957 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2020). “” Cal. Civ. Code § 1641 . California case law consistently reaffirms the primacy of this principle: It is a primary rule of interpretation that contracts must be construed as a whole[,] that is, from their four corners, and the intention of the parties is to be collected from…”
Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co., 612 P.2d 889 (Cal. 1980). “) Equally well settled is the rule that the contract must be construed as a whole and the intention of the parties must be ascertained from the consideration of the entire contract, not some isolated portion (Civ. Code, § 1641; Universal Sales Corp. v.”
United Nat'l Ins. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2009). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1641. If a written policy provision is “clear and explicit,” it must be given proper effect.”
Villacres v. Abm Indus. Inc., 189 Cal. App. 4th 562 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “(Civ. Code, § 1641; La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, Inc.”
Reserve Ins. Co. v. Pisciotta, 640 P.2d 764 (Cal. 1982). “" (Civ. Code, § 1641), and that the overriding goal of all contractual interpretation is to carry out the intentions of the contracting parties.”
Meridian Leasing, Inc. v. Associated Aviation Underwriters, Inc., 409 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2005). “Cal. Civ.Code § 1641; Ticor Title Ins. Co.”
Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2010). “Even were we to examine the district court’s actions under Rule 12(b)(6), we would be required to hold that the district court erred in dismissing Whittlestone's claim for lost profits and consequential damages. Under both California law and Missouri law, "[t]he whole of a…”
Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc., 339 F. Supp. 3d 959 (E.D. Cal. 2018). “But for all other conduct "arising out of or relating to [Copart or Sparta's] performance or failure to perform under" the ISA, no indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages are available as relief.”
Adams v. MHC Colony Park Ltd. P'ship, 224 Cal. App. 4th 601 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “2d 545 ] [instrument’s language cannot be found to be ambiguous in the abstract; it must be construed in context]; Civ. Code, § 1641 [whole of a contract is to be taken together].”
Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. v. Cont'l Cas. Ins., 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “(Civ. Code, § 1641.) It is practicable to give the references to specific places effect by interpreting each endorsement as applying only to claims or suits made or filed in a specified place.”
Abraham Bielski v. Coinbase, Inc., 87 F.4th 1003 (9th Cir. 2023). “See Cal. Civ. Code § 1641 (“The whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.”
Rice v. Downs, 248 Cal. App. 4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “” (Civ. Code, § 1641.) “ ‘A court must view the language in light of the instrument as a whole and not use a ‘“disjointed, single-paragraph, strict construction approach” [citation].”
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.