California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1642 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Several contracts relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of substantially one transaction, are to be taken together.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 167
cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1923–2026 · leading case: R.W.L. Enters. v. Oldcastle, Inc., 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 677 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
R.W.L. Enters. v. Oldcastle, Inc., 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 677 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “We conclude the trial court erred in construing the 2001 and 2010 instruments together under Civil Code section 1642 to award Oldcastle attorney fees.”
Mountain Air Enters., LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, 398 P.3d 556 (Cal. 2017). “341 [concluding that a sales agreement and a promissory note executed pursuant to a provision of the sales agreement, in a form attached to the agreement, "constitute[d] part of a single contract"].”
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Sequoia Ins., 211 Cal. App. 3d 1285 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “) Civil Code section 1642 is simply one of the rules referred to in Civil Code section 1637 for aiding in the interpretation of a contract when the intent of the parties is “otherwise doubtful.”
Holguin v. Dish Network LLC, 229 Cal. App. 4th 1310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “” (Civ. Code, § 1642.) “The language of [Civil Code section 1642] has been somewhat broadened by construing it as a declaration of common law principles.”
Reigelsperger v. Siller, 150 P.3d 764 (Cal. 2007). “(Civ. Code, § 1642.) 6 The consent agreement states that it is intended to apply, not only to the “entire course of treatment for my present condition,” but also to “any future condition(s) for which I seek treatment.”
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Am. Dynasty Surplus Lines Ins., 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “1 provides the means of doing so, that is, by purchasing insurance for that purpose. Thus, article 5.”
Whitemaine v. Aniskovich, 183 P.3d 137 (Nev. 2008). “26 After applying California Civil Code § 1642, 27 the trial court found that the Bank of America and BAIS agreements were “sub *312 stantially one transaction and should be as one.”
Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 361 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “” (Civ. Code, § 1642.) But nothing in Frasher , or the general rule as stated in Civil Code section 1642, supports the conclusion that, where the contracts form part of a single integrated transaction, a discrete term contained in one agreement is necessarily applicable to the…”
Cadigan v. Am. Trust Co., 281 P.2d 332 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955). “” (Civ. Code, § 1642.) The questioned parol evidence demonstrates that such is the case.”
Peterson Dev. Co. v. Torrey Pines Bank, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6394 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “) [9] Civil Code section 1642 provides: "Several contracts relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of substantially one transaction, are to be taken together.”
Colaco v. Cavotec SA, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “Adopting Colaco's argument would mean the parties intended the APA to render the simultaneously created Employment Contract *1203 superfluous, an odd result because there would have been no reason to create the Employment Contract at all.”
Chavez v. Indymac Mortg. Servs., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “(Civ. Code, § 1642 [“Several contracts relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of substantially one transaction, are to be taken together.”
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.