Cal. Codes » Civil Code
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1693 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When relief based upon rescission is claimed in an action or proceeding, such relief shall not be denied because of delay in giving notice of rescission unless such delay has been substantially prejudicial to the other party.

A party who has received benefits by reason of a contract that is subject to rescission and who in an action or proceeding seeks relief based upon rescission shall not be denied relief because of a delay in restoring or in tendering restoration of such benefits before judgment unless such delay has been substantially prejudicial to the other party; but the court may make a tender of restoration a condition of its judgment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Donovan v. RRL Corp., 27 P.3d 702 (Cal. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Donovan v. RRL Corp., 27 P.3d 702 (Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “(Civ.Code, § 1693.) Defendant here, of course, has never given any actual notice of rescission, by pleading or otherwise.”
In Re Marriage of Balcof, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “) Civil Code section 1693 states in part that “[w]hen relief based upon rescission is claimed in an action or proceeding, such relief shall not be denied because of delay in giving notice of rescission unless such delay has been substantially prejudicial to the other party.”
Myerchin v. Fam. Benefits, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 4th 1526 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “3 Civil Code section 1693 provides in pertinent part: “A party who has received benefits by reason of a contract that is subject to rescission and who in an action or proceeding seeks relief based upon rescission shall not be denied relief because of a delay in restoring or in…”
In Re Consol. Pretrial Proceedings in Air West, 436 F. Supp. 1281 (N.D. Cal. 1977). “2d 819, 827 (9th Cir. 1949). Promptness in seeking rescission of an act induced by duress is not a prerequisite plaintiff must establish; rather, it is the defendant who must assert that he is prejudiced by plaintiff’s unreasonable delay.”
Encore Bank, N.A. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 918 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D. Tex. 2013). · cites it 2× “Cal. Civ.Code § 1693. Wilke v. Coinway, Inc.”
Citicorp Real Est., Inc. v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “California Civil Code § 1693 provides: When relief based upon rescission is claimed in an action or proceeding, such relief shall not be denied because of delay in giving notice of rescission unless such delay has been substantially prejudicial to the other party.”
Fair Hous. Council of Cent. California, Inc. v. Tylar Prop. Mgmt. Co., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (E.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “Instead, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Legislature, through the enactment of California Civil Code § 1693, 5 has “permitted plaintiffs who are unable to restore the consideration received in their original settlements and releases to delay the restoration of…”
Jaunich v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 647 F. Supp. 209 (N.D. Cal. 1986). “” Cal.Civ.Code § 1693 (West 1985); see also In re Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings in Airwest, 436 F.”
Admiral Ins. v. Debber, 442 F. Supp. 2d 958 (E.D. Cal. 2006). “The existence of prejudice to the defendant under California Civil Code section 1693 depends on the specific facts of the case.”
Doctor v. Lakeridge Constr. Co., 252 Cal. App. 2d 715 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967). “It is true, as urged by plaintiff, that a claim for damages is not inconsistent with a claim for relief based on rescission (Civ. Code, § 1693); but section 1691 of the same code provides in pertinent part that ‘‘ Subject to Section 1693, to effect a rescission a party to the…”
Royce Mathew v. the Walt Disney Co., 690 F. App'x 509 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “California Civil Code § 1693 provides that a claim for rescission “shall not be denied because of delay in giving notice of rescission unless such delay has been substantially prejudicial to the other party.”
The Merch. of Tennis, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “) Civil Code section 1693 2 permits a party who is unable to restore consideration received from settlements and releases to delay such payment until final judgment, so long as the defendant shall not be substantially prejudiced by delay.”
Show all 20 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.