Cal. Codes » Civil Code
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 2334 (2026)

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

A principal is bound by acts of his agent, under a merely ostensible authority, to those persons only who have in good faith, and without want of ordinary care, incurred a liability or parted with value, upon the faith thereof.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1945–2025 · leading case: Markow v. Rosner, 3 Cal. App. 5th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Markow v. Rosner, 3 Cal. App. 5th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” (Civ. Code, § 2334.) “Before recovery can be had against the principal for the acts of an ostensible agent, three requirements must be met: The person dealing with an agent must do so with a reasonable belief in the agent’s authority, such belief must be generated by some act…”
Mejia v. Cmty. Hosp. of San Bernardino, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6291 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “) Civil Code section 2334 further provides: “A principal is bound by acts of his agent, under a merely ostensible authority, to those persons only who have in good faith, and without want of ordinary care, incurred a liability or parted with value, upon the faith thereof.”
Snukal v. Flightways Mfg., Inc., 3 P.3d 286 (Cal. 2000). “2d 571 ]; Civ. Code, § 2334.) At common law, the party seeking to enforce a contract with a corporation generally has the burden of establishing the contracting officer’s authority to bind the corporation.”
Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp., 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7539 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992). “) An ostensible agency is established when a principal intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, causes a third person to believe another is an agent.”
Hobart v. Hobart Est. Co., 159 P.2d 958 (Cal. 1945). “This contention is based on the doctrine of ostensible authority, which is defined as such authority “as a principal, intentionally or by want of ordinary care, causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess” (Civ.”
House v. State of California, 119 Cal. App. 3d 861 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, § 2334; Pasadena Medi-Center Associates v.”
White v. Moriarty, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). “” (Civ. Code, § 2334.) Moriarty’s signature on the power of attorney, coupled with his admitted knowledge that Anderson would use the power to sign purchase and finance documents, is sufficient evidence of the creation of an ostensible authority.”
C074810Whitlow v. Rideout Mem'l Hosp., 237 Cal. App. 4th 631 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “” Civil Code section 2334 further provides: “A principal is bound by acts of his agent, under a merely ostensible authority, to those persons only who have in good faith, and without want of ordinary care, incurred a liability or parted with value, upon the faith thereof.”
Reusche v. California Pac. Title Ins., 231 Cal. App. 2d 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965). “’ ’ Liability of the principal for the ostensible agent’s acts rests on the doctrine of estoppel and its essential elements are representation by the principal, justifiable reliance thereon by the third party and change of position or injury resulting from such reliance (Civ.”
Yanchor v. Kagan, 22 Cal. App. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971). “” (Civ. Code, § 2334.) Under these provisions, if a principal by his acts has led others to believe that he has conferred authority upon an agent, he cannot be heard to assert, as against third persons who have relied and acted thereon in good faith, that he did not intend to…”
Bayuk v. Edson, 236 Cal. App. 2d 309 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965). “Code, §§ 2300, 2316.) “A principal is bound by acts of his agent, under a merely ostensible authority, to those persons only who have in good faith, and without want of ordinary care, incurred a liability or parted with value, upon the faith thereof.”
Columbia Outfitting Co. v. Freeman, 223 P.2d 21 (Cal. 1950). “” (Civ. Code, § 2334.) The trial court was justified in finding that Freeman did not believe, or at least was careless in believing, that Flottemeseh had authority to bind Columbia to an obligation entirely different from that which it had previously had to Freeman.”
Show all 31 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.