The holder of the contract shall not charge, collect, or receive a finance charge which exceeds the dollar amount shown pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1803.3, except to the extent (a) caused by the holder’s receipt of one or more payments under a contract which provides for determination of the finance charge or a portion thereof on the 365-day basis at a time or times other than as originally scheduled, whether or not the parties enter into an agreement pursuant to Section 1807.1, (b) permitted by paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 226.17 of Regulation Z, or (3) permitted by Section 1805.8.
No annual fee or charge shall be made in any retail installment contract.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
King v. Cent. Bank, 558 P.2d 857 (Cal. 1977).
King v. Cent. Bank, 558 P.2d 857 (Cal. 1977).
· cites it 2× “The first, a class action brought under the Unruh Act, alleges a violation of the act's finance charge limitations (Civ. Code, § 1805.1) and its disclosure *843 requirements ( id.”
Peterson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 556 F. Supp. 1100 (N.D. Cal. 1981).
“They are multiparty agreements of a hybrid nature, displaying characteristics of both loans and sales.”
People v. Adir Internat., LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
“Civil Code sections 1805.1 and 1810.3 were adopted intact from the draft proposed bill attached to the final report.”
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.