California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1657 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If no time is specified for the performance of an act required to be performed, a reasonable time is allowed. If the act is in its nature capable of being done instantly—as, for example, if it consists in the payment of money only—it must be performed immediately upon the thing to be done being exactly ascertained.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case: Paz v. State of California, 994 P.2d 975 (Cal. 2000).
Paz v. State of California, 994 P.2d 975 (Cal. 2000). “Although the development permit did not set a specific deadline for the installation of the signal, it is well established, under generally applicable legal principles, that in the absence of the recitation of a specified date a provision is to be interpreted to require…”
Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Rsch. v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 1657. Thus, AB has only a reasonable amount of time before it must decide whether or not to sue an infringer, depriving AB of the right to indulge infringements indefinitely.”
J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory, 598 P.2d 60 (Cal. 1979). “(Civ. Code, § 1657.) Despite requests that respondent complete the construction promptly, the work was not completed within a reasonable time.”
Platt Pac., Inc. v. Andelson, 862 P.2d 158 (Cal. 1993). “Among these decisions are those involving arbitration agreements that require, expressly or by operation of law (Civ. Code, § 1657), that the demand for arbitration be made within a reasonable time.”
Perfumebay. Com Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 506 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2007). “Cal. Civ.Code § 1657, providing that "[i]f no time is specified for the performance of an act required to be performed, a reasonable time is allowed,” also does not support eBay's argument, as there were other disputed material terms.”
Patel v. Liebermensch, 197 P.3d 177 (Cal. 2008). “) This court rejected her arguments, reasoning in part as follows: “The escrow instruction signed by the plaintiff that he was to pay the seller’s title and escrow charges constituted compliance with the defendant’s condition [that plaintiff would take care of escrow expenses],…”
Bushansky v. Soon-Shiong, 234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 54 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “In light of that silence, we "apply the rule that where no time is fixed for the performance of a condition precedent, it will be presumed that it is to be performed within a reasonable time.”
WYDA Assocs. v. Merner, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1491 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “12 Civil Code section 1657 provides in part: “If no time is specified for the performance of an act required to be performed, a reasonable time is allowed.”
Consol. World Investments, Inc. v. Lido Preferred Ltd., 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7687 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). “CWI points out that despite the provision in the contract declaring “time is of the essence,” the contract contains no specific time limit for its request to open escrow.”
Cochran v. Cochran, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5614 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “6 (Civ. Code, § 1657; Leonard v. Rose (1967) 65 Cal.”
Principal Mut. Life Ins. v. Vars, Pave, McCord & Freedman, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6334 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “While it could have been made more explicit, when viewed in this context it seems clear to us that the landlord’s successor in interest would be the party to make that request. Though the provision is silent as to how that request must be made, appellants do not contend that a…”
Hastings v. Matlock, 171 Cal. App. 3d 826 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). “Matlock, along with all other witnesses, concurred that payment from the Hastings was to be made by check.”
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.