California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 2332 (2026)
Mutual Obligations of Principals and Third Persons
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of, and ought, in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, to communicate to the other.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1946–2025 · leading case: South Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
South Bay Chevrolet v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “Additionally, South Bay’s principals, Ordway and Reneau, testified that when South Bay received disclosures from GMAC about its interest calculation method, they did not read those disclosures but instead relied on Fenn to do so. In sum, on this evidentiary record the trial…”
Baxter v. Cal. State Teachers' Ret. Sys., 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 37 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “( Civ. Code, § 2332 ; see McKenney v. Ellsworth (1913) 165 Cal.”
GHK Assocs. v. Mayer Grp., Inc., 224 Cal. App. 3d 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990). “Code, §§ 15009, 15012, 15013); and PBL is liable for the torts because the knowledge of Alan I.”
Gregg v. Cloney, 91 Cal. App. 4th 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “(Civ. Code, § 2332.) 9 “It is . . . well-settled law in this state that notice given to or possessed by an agent within the scope of his employment and in connection with and during his agency, is notice to the principal.”
Acosta v. Glenfed Dev. Corp., 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “Finally, under *1300 Civil Code section 2332, 16 the contractor is deemed to have notice of the misconduct even if not informed of it by the RME or RMO.”
Desny v. Wilder, 299 P.2d 257 (Cal. 1956). “" [51] If the secretary had authority to receive and transmit messages to her employer such as messages offering to sell a story embodying a writer's idea for a photoplay and to take down in shorthand for transmission to her employer the script of a synopsis, she also…”
Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno, 163 Cal. App. 4th 4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “(Civ. Code § 2332.) I dissent because I do not believe the evidence raises a triable issue of fact on the notice requirement.”
In Re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal. App. 4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “(Civ. Code, § 2332; Rauer v. Hertweck (1917) 175 Cal.”
O'Riordan v. Fed. Kemper Life Assurance Co., 114 P.3d 753 (Cal. 2005). “”]; Civ. Code, § 2332 [“As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of, and ought, in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, to communicate to the other.”
McIntosh v. Mills, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 66 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “” (Civ. Code, § 2332.) This doctrine of imputed knowledge was discussed by the court in Columbia Pictures Corp.”
Wagner v. Benson, 101 Cal. App. 3d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). “Generally, all knowledge which an agent in good faith ought to communicate to his principal will be imputed to the principal as against innocent third parties (Civ. Code, § 2332). An exception exists, however, where the third party is "`acquainted with circumstances plainly…”
Diaz v. Fed. Express Corp., 373 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2005). “California Civil Code section 2332, entitled “Notice to principal or agent as notice to the other,” states: “As against a principal, both principal and agent are deemed to have notice of whatever either has notice of, and ought, in good faith and the exercise of ordinary care…”
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.