California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 2309 (2026)
Authority of Agents
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1945–2021 · leading case: Sunset-Sternau Food Co. v. Bonzi, 389 P.2d 133 (Cal. 1964).
Sunset-Sternau Food Co. v. Bonzi, 389 P.2d 133 (Cal. 1964). “Although section 2309 does not clearly specify whether it covers only the agent's authority to bind the principal to a third party or extends to the relationship between the agent and the principal, we believe it is confined to the agent's power to bind the principal only.”
Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First Am. Title Ins., 239 Cal. App. 4th 1088 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “” Tribeca again attempts to stand in Sky Pacific’s shoes, maintaining that it was the “agent for the joint venture.”
Rakestraw v. Rodrigues, 500 P.2d 1401 (Cal. 1972). “) Since authorization to bind a principal to a deed of trust must be in writing (Civ. Code, § 2309) and because her consent to or adoption of the fraudulent acts was not in writing, Joyce argues that there has been no valid ratification.”
Ripani v. Liberty Loan Corp., 95 Cal. App. 3d 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). “*609 II Civil Code section 2309 provides: “An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.”
Kismet Acquisition, LLC v. Icenhower (In Re Icenhower), 757 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2014). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 2309. The imputation of notice to Martha is based, not on her attorney’s execution of a contract on her behalf, but rather on her attorney’s investigation leading up to the sale of the Villa interest.”
Leonard v. Gallagher, 235 Cal. App. 2d 362 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965). “(Civ. Code, § 2309.) 2. It appears to be the law in California, compelled by the express language of Civil Code, section 2337, that an instrument within the scope of the agent's authority by which he intends to bind his principal, does bind him if such intent is plainly…”
Travelers Ins. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 434 P.2d 992 (Cal. 1967). “A contract creating such an agency need not be in writing (Civ. Code, § 2309) nor supported by consideration.”
Kerner v. Hughes Tool Co., 56 Cal. App. 3d 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). “) The equal dignities rule (Civ. Code, § 2309) declares that “An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.”
Bliss v. Sec.-First Nat'l Bank, 183 P.2d 312 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947). “Holeman’s part in bringing on the trustee’s sale consisted of doing nothing more than giving a notice of a breach of the contract which had been left to her and Edna by Mr.”
Le Blond v. Wolfe, 188 P.2d 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948). “(Civ. Code, § 2309.) The statute of frauds was enacted to prevent fraud.”
Carlton Browne & Co. Inc. v. Superior Court, 210 Cal. App. 3d 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “Civil Code section 2309 which sets forth the so called equal dignities rule provides: “An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.”
O'Donnell v. Lutter, 156 P.2d 958 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945). “Lutter was without authority to bind his principal on a contract for the sale of real property, because such authorization was not in writing (Civ. Code, § 2309; Civ. Code, § 1624, subd.”
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.