Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS / PART 2. CONTRACTS / TITLE 3. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1648 (2026)

Interpretation Of Contracts

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1941–2025 · leading case: Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445 (9th Cir. 2006). “" Cal. Civ.Code § 1648. Marder's claims to co-ownership, based in her contributions to the creation of the film, fall within the language of the Release.”
Victoria v. Superior Court, 710 P.2d 833 (Cal. 1985). · cites it 2× “" (Civ. Code, § 1648, italics added.) (2) Finally, ambiguities in standard form contracts are to be construed against the drafter.”
Badie v. Bank of Am., 67 Cal. App. 4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “918 ]) and must be mindful of the rule that, “However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract” (Civ. Code, § 1648). We must also provide an interpretation that will make an agreement…”
Neverkovec v. Fredericks, 74 Cal. App. 4th 337 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “" (Civ.Code, § 1648.) "Whether a third party is an intended beneficiary .”
Rodriguez v. Oto, 212 Cal. App. 4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “’ (Civ. Code, § 1648.) ‘Whether a third party is an intended beneficiary .”
RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West, 165 Cal. App. 4th 1511 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “” (Civ. Code, § 1648.) “Although ‘[t]he law favors contracts for arbitration of disputes between parties’ [citation], ' “there is no policy compelling persons to accept arbitration of controversies which they have not agreed to arbitrate .”
Fuentes v. TMCSF, Inc., 26 Cal. App. 5th 541 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). “" ( Civ. Code, § 1648.) "Most courts have held that a nonsignatory who is the agent of a party to a contract containing an arbitration clause may compel the other parties to the contract to arbitrate their claims against him or her for liability arising out of the contract .”
Bono v. David, 147 Cal. App. 4th 1055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” (Civ. Code, § 1648.) B. Does the Language of the MOU Cover Bono’s Defamation Action? Increasingly over recent years, in deciding whether or not a particular arbitration clause applies to the dispute in question, our sister courts have carefully considered the breadth—or lack…”
ASARCO, LLC v. Celanese Chem. Co., 792 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2015). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1648. In this case, the provisions of the contract are clear.”
Lawrence v. Walzer & Gabrielson, 207 Cal. App. 3d 1501 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “” Civil Code section 1648 provides: “However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract.”
Herring v. Teradyne, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “(quoting Cal. Civ.Code § 1648). The court must also interpret the contract in a manner that makes the agreement “lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect” while “avoid[ing] an interpretation that would make it harsh, unjust or inequitable.”
Siligo v. Castellucci, 21 Cal. App. 4th 873 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). “” (Civ. Code, § 1648.) “Repugnancy in a contract must be reconciled, if possible, by such an interpretation as will give some effect to the repugnant clauses, subordinate to the general intent and purpose of the whole contract.”
Show all 34 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.