California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1650 (2026)
Interpretation Of Contracts
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Particular clauses of a contract are subordinate to its general intent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1948–2024 · leading case: Teamsters, Local 396 v. Nasa Servs., Inc., 957 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2020).
Teamsters, Local 396 v. Nasa Servs., Inc., 957 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2020). “See Cal. Civ. Code § 1650 (“Particular clauses of a contract are subordinate to its general intent.”
Frankel v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 46 Cal. App. 4th 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “Code, § 1643) and which gives effect to the intent of the parties as it may be interpreted from their entire agreement rather than one which renders the contract void (Civ. Code, §§ 1650, 1652, 1655, 1656). [] .”
Cnty. of Kern v. State Dep't of Health Care Servs., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1504 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “Since we are examining these laws in aid of interpreting the Medi-Cal contract, the rules of contract interpretation are useful to resolve the conflict.”
Ruhlen v. Montgomery (In Re Montgomery), 310 B.R. 169 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2004). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1650. Specific provisions will control general provisions in a written contract only if inconsistent and irreconcilable with the general provisions of the agreement.”
Eldridge v. Burns, 76 Cal. App. 3d 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978). “(Civ. Code, §§ 1650, 1652, 1655, 1656.) Any fraud on the part of buyers in dividing the property would give rise to a cause of action by seller.”
People v. Haney, 207 Cal. App. 3d 1034 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “Code, § 1643) and which gives effect to the intent of the parties as it may be interpreted from their entire agreement rather than one which renders the contract void (Civ. Code, §§ 1650, 1652, 1655, 1656). “[However,] the courts cannot make better agreements for parties than…”
Rabinowitch v. Cal. W. Gas Co., 257 Cal. App. 2d 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967). “) However, the application of that rule to the present case works in favor of the lessor, not the lessee: if the particular clause relating to 281,250 gallons were eliminated, the remainder of the lease is entirely consistent.”
Addiego v. Hill, 238 Cal. App. 2d 842 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965). “Code, § 1643) and which gives effect to the intent of the parties as it may be interpreted from their entire agreement rather than one which renders the contract void (Civ. Code, §§ 1650, 1652, 1655, 1656). We recognize that courts cannot make better agreements for parties than…”
Stockwell v. Lindeman, 229 Cal. App. 2d 750 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964). “(Civ. Code, §§ 1650, 1652, 1655, 1656.) Any fraud on the part of buyers in dividing the property would give rise to a cause of action by seller.”
Transp. Oil Co. v. Exeter Oil Co., 191 P.2d 129 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948). “(Civ. Code, § 1650.) Accordingly, we hold that the effect to be given to the term, “paying quantities,” in the habendum is not governed by the $15 per day definition, but is to be determined by reference to the established legal meaning of the term.”
In Re Amica, Inc., 135 B.R. 534 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992). “Cal.Civil Code § 1650; Broome v. Broome, 104 Cal.”
Patrick J. Ruane, Inc. v. Parker, 185 Cal. App. 2d 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960). “” (Civ. Code, § 1650.) “Stipulations which are necessary to make a contract reasonable .”
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.