California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1648 (2026)
✓ current as of May 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).
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). “" (Civ. Code, § 1648, italics added.) (2) Finally, ambiguities in standard form contracts are to be construed against the drafter.”
Badie v. Bank of Am., 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8189 (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, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6726 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “" (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., 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 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, 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1809 (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, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 244 (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.”
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.