California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1649 (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
If the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1942–2025 · leading case: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty., 16 P.3d 94 (Cal. 2001).
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty., 16 P.3d 94 (Cal. 2001). “) Thus, if the meaning a layperson would ascribe to contract language is not ambiguous, we apply that meaning.”
Brian A. Buckley v. C.A. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2006). “” Cal. Civ. Code § 1649 . The inquiry considers not the subjective belief of the promisor but, rather, the “objectively reasonable” expectation of the promisee.”
Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Admiral Ins., 897 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1995). “(Civ. Code, § 1649.) If application of this rule does not eliminate the ambiguity, ambiguous language is construed against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.”
In re Ins. Installment Fee Cases, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1395 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “3d 385 ]; Civ. Code, § 1649.) This rule protects both the subjective beliefs of the insurer and the objectively reasonable expectations of the insured, and only if its application does not resolve the ambiguity do we construe the ambiguous language against the insurer.”
Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club v. Newport Beach Country Club, Inc., 109 Cal. App. 4th 944 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “Code, § 1654) and that if “the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it must be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee understood it” (Civ. Code, § 1649). We find the governing regulations…”
AIU Ins. v. Superior Court, 799 P.2d 1253 (Cal. 1990). “(Civ. Code, § 1649.) If application of this rule does not eliminate the ambiguity, ambiguous language is construed against the party who caused the uncertainty to exist.”
Badie v. Bank of Am., 67 Cal. App. 4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “Code, §§ 1644, 1645), and we also interpret any ambiguous language in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time the agreements were entered into, that the promisee understood it (Civ. Code, § 1649). Finally, if the uncertainty is not removed by application of the…”
Wolf v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “” (Civ. Code, § 1649; Bank of the West v. Superior Court, supra, 2 Cal.”
Kashmiri v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 156 Cal. App. 4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” (Civ. Code, § 1649.) The University asserts that there is nothing inconsistent with sending out a bill and reserving the right to change the fee and it cites Eisele v.”
Ameron Internat. Corp. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 242 P.3d 1020 (Cal. 2010). “(Civ. Code, § 1649.) In addition, if, after the court evaluates the policy's language and context, ambiguities still exist, the court must construe the ambiguous language against the insurer, who wrote the policy and is held "`responsible'" for the uncertainty.”
Neverkovec v. Fredericks, 74 Cal. App. 4th 337 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “We note that while the contracting parties may testify regarding their actual intent, the sufficiency of such evidence must be determined according to the usual objective standard of contract interpretation.”
Affordable Hous. Dev. Corp. v. City of Fresno, 433 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). “Cal. Civil Code § 1649 . The parties to the agreements did not dispute their meaning.”
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.