Cal. Civil Code § 1643
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 229
cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1928–2026 · leading case: Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013)
“” (Civ. Code, § 1643.) “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.”
Julian v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance (2005)
“2d 704 ) consistent with our statutory mandate to interpret contracts in such a manner as will make them "lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties" (Civ.Code, § 1643) and…”
Safeco Insurance of America v. Robert S. (2001)
“That promise would be rendered illusory if, as discussed above, we were to construe the phrase "illegal act," as contained in the policy's exclusionary clause, to mean violation of any law, whether criminal or civil.”
Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2010)
“Code, § 3541 ["[a]n interpretation which gives effect [to an agreement] is preferred to one which makes void"]; Civ. Code, § 1643 [if possible without violating the parties' unambiguous intent, a contract is interpreted so as to make it "lawful, operative, definite, reasonable,…”
Signal Companies, Inc. v. Harbor Ins. Co. (1980)
“Also, where a contract is susceptible of two interpretations, the courts shall give it such a construction as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties (Civ.…”
Asmus v. Pacific Bell (2000)
“) The language of the MESP and Pacific Bell's own characterization of the condition for its termination leave no doubt the parties intended that the condition could be measured and ascertained. In any event, because Pacific Bell drafted the language, any uncertainty must be…”
T. M. Cobb Co. v. Superior Court (1984)
“) The construction of the contract must be one that will make it reasonable, operative and lawful (Civ. Code, §§ 1643, 3541), the contract may be explained by references to the circumstances under which it was made (Civ.”
Marggieh Dicarlo v. Moneylion, Inc. (2021)
“Cal. Civ. Code § 1643 (instructing courts to adopt a “lawful” contract interpretation that is “capable of being carried into effect” when possible); Mitsubishi Motors Corp.”
Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. (2003)
“” (Civ. Code, § 1643; see Powers v. Dickson, Carlson & Campillo, supra, 54 Cal.”
West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (2013)
“557 ), and a contract must be interpreted in a way to make it lawful (Civ. Code, § 1643). To make the Trial Plan Agreement lawful, it must be interpreted to include the proviso imposed by Directive *798 09-01.”
Badie v. Bank of America (1998)
“(Civ. Code, § 1643; City of El Cajon v. El Cajon Police Officers’ Assn.”
Citizens for Amending Proposition v. City of Pomona (2018)
“" ( Civ. Code, § 1643 ; see also id. , § 3541.”
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.