California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1667 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
That is not lawful which is:
1.Contrary to an express provision of law;
2.Contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited; or,
3.Otherwise contrary to good morals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69
cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case: J. C. Penney Cas. Ins. v. M. K., 804 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1991).
J. C. Penney Cas. Ins. v. M. K., 804 P.2d 689 (Cal. 1991). “[9] The Court of Appeal, relying on a prior decision, incorrectly stated that section 533 is subject to the rule of strict construction against an insurer.”
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co., 425 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2018). “We reject the argument. A. Under general principles of California contract law, a contract is unlawful, and therefore unenforceable, if it is "[c]ontrary to an express provision of law" or "[c]ontrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited.”
Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2023). ““One 21 In its briefs, Epic also asserts that the district court erred in ruling that the DPLA was neither void-against-public-policy nor unconscionable, but the only substantive argument it makes is that the DPLA violates the Sherman Act.”
Citizens for Amending Proposition v. City of Pomona, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 750 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “" ( Civ. Code, § 1667.) Unlawful contracts are considered void.”
Wynn v. Monterey Club, 111 Cal. App. 3d 789 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). “(Civ. Code, § 1667.) Defendants' claim of illegality rests on their assertion that they lacked legal authority to bar plaintiff's wife from access to their establishments because of the proscription of Civil Code section 51, [1] *796 otherwise known as the Unruh Civil Rights…”
Kashani v. Tsann Kuen China Enter. Co., 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4052 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “” Civil Code section 1667 states that “unlawful” is “1.”
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Hurley, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “While a contractual provision may be declared void if it is contrary to public policy (Civ.Code, § 1667), a statute may not be invalidated except on constitutional grounds.”
City of Oakland v. Hassey, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “) 7 Civil Code section 1667 defines unlawfulness as that which is “1.”
Hill v. San Jose Fam. Hous. Partners, LLC, 198 Cal. App. 4th 764 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “(Civ. Code, § 1667, subd. 1.) The object of a contract is the thing which it is agreed, on the part of the party receiving the consideration, to do or not to do.”
Russell City Energy Co. v. City of Hayward, 222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “473.) " 'The rule denying recovery to a party to an illegal contract is subject to a wide range of exceptions.”
Johnson v. Superior Court, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3918 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “276 are not specifically named in the agreement, it is clear that he belongs to the class of persons—Cryobank sperm donors—who are to benefit from the agreement’s confidentiality provisions. But, our analysis does not end here.”
Bovard v. Am. Horse Enter., Inc., 201 Cal. App. 3d 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). “” (Civ. Code, § 1667.) “If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the entire contract is void.”
— Cal. Civil Code § 1667(2) — 1 case
Carter v. Seaboard Fin. Co., 203 P.2d 758 (Cal. 1949).
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.