Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS / PART 2. CONTRACTS / TITLE 5. EXTINCTION OF CONTRACTS / CHAPTER 2. Rescission
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1692 (2026)

Rescission

✓ 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

When a contract has been rescinded in whole or in part, any party to the contract may seek relief based upon such rescission by (a)bringing an action to recover any money or thing owing to him by any other party to the contract as a consequence of such rescission or for any other relief to which he may be entitled under the circumstances or (b)asserting such rescission by way of defense or cross-complaint.

If in an action or proceeding a party seeks relief based upon rescission and the court determines that the contract has not been rescinded, the court may grant any party to the action any other relief to which he may be entitled under the circumstances.

A claim for damages is not inconsistent with a claim for relief based upon rescission. The aggrieved party shall be awarded complete relief, including restitution of benefits, if any, conferred by him as a result of the transaction and any consequential damages to which he is entitled; but such relief shall not include duplicate or inconsistent items of recovery.

If in an action or proceeding a party seeks relief based upon rescission, the court may require the party to whom such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other which justice may require and may otherwise in its judgment adjust the equities between the parties.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: S. Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 11 Cal. App. 5th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
S. Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 11 Cal. App. 5th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “Contrary to the arbitrator’s ruling, a workers’ compensation insurance policy may be rescinded.”
Scheherezade Sharabianlou v. Karp, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1133 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “According to the Sharabianlous, these *1144 damages do more than restore the Berensteins to the status quo ante, and thus are not proper restitutionary or “consequential damages” under Civil Code section 1692. We agree with appellants.”
Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First All. Mortg. Co., 41 Cal. App. 4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Apparently the trial court declared rescission in order to invoke Civil Code section 1692. Civil Code section 1692 provides generally that a court may award against a party seeking rescission “any compensation to the other which justice may require,” and permits the court to…”
Imperial Cas. & Indem. Co. v. Sogomonian, 198 Cal. App. 3d 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Code, §§ 331, 359; Civ. Code, § 1692.) [10] (10) Such right was exercised in a timely manner (Ins.”
Olson v. Cohen, 106 Cal. App. 4th 1209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× ““Civil Code section 1692 in essence restates the equity jurisprudence applicable in the rescission context.”
In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 754 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010). “Code § 3343 or Cal. Civ.Code § 1692. (¶ 404.) See Falk, 496 F.”
Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Ins., 181 Cal. App. 4th 60 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010). “See also Civ. Code, § 1692 (‘If in an action or proceeding a party seeks relief based upon rescission, the court .”
People Ex Rel. Kennedy v. Beaumont Inv., Ltd., 111 Cal. App. 4th 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “(Civ. Code, § 1692 [after rescission of a contract, the aggrieved party “shall be awarded complete relief, including restitution of benefits”]; Runyan v.”
Ogden Martin Sys., Inc., Cross-Appellee v. San Bernardino Cnty., California, Cross-Appellant, 932 F.2d 1284 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “Cal.Civ.Code § 1692 (West 1985); see St. Regis Paper Co.”
Snelson v. Ondulando Highlands Corp., 5 Cal. App. 3d 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 4× “(Civ. Code, § 1692.) (16) If the value of the real property is not what California Federal thought it to be because of any wrongful act on the part of defendants or any of them, then its relief in this respect is a matter for California Federal to enforce against the defendants…”
Star Pac. Investments, Inc. v. Oro Hills Ranch, Inc., 121 Cal. App. 3d 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 1692; 9 Walters v. Marler, supra, 83 Cal.”
La Sound USA, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 156 Cal. App. 4th 1259 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “2d 682 ]; accord, Civ. Code, § 1692.) It would be inequitable to require a party insured under a rescinded policy to reimburse the insurer the policy benefits it received and also all policy benefits that every other insured party received.”
Show all 75 citing cases →
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.