A promise to answer for the obligation of another, in any of the following cases, is deemed an original obligation of the promisor, and need not be in writing:
(1)Where the promise is made by one who has received property of another upon an undertaking to apply it pursuant to such promise; or by one who has received a discharge from an obligation in whole or in part, in consideration of such promise;
(2)Where the creditor parts with value, or enters into an obligation, in consideration of the obligation in respect to which the promise is
made, in terms or under circumstances such as to render the party making the promise the principal debtor and the person in whose behalf it is made, his surety;
(3)Where the promise, being for an antecedent obligation of another, is made upon the consideration that the party receiving it cancels the antecedent obligation, accepting the new promise as a substitute therefor; or upon the consideration that the party receiving it releases the property of another from a levy, or his person from imprisonment under an execution on a judgment obtained upon the antecedent obligation;
(4)Where the promise is upon a consideration beneficial to the promisor, whether moving from either party to the antecedent obligation, or from another person;
(5)Where a factor undertakes, for a commission, to sell merchandise and act as
surety in connection with the sale;
(6)Where the holder of an instrument for the payment of money, upon which a third person is or may become liable to him, transfers it in payment of a precedent debt of his own, or for a new consideration, and in connection with such transfer enters into a promise respecting such instrument.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1881–2024 · leading case:
Zoran Corp. v. Chen, 185 Cal. App. 4th 799 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
Zoran Corp. v. Chen, 185 Cal. App. 4th 799 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
“2 Civil Code section 2794 lists six circumstances under which the obligation of the promisor will be deemed an original obligation and thus will require no writing: “(1) Where the promise is made by one who has received property of another upon an undertaking to apply it…”
Wells Fargo Bank v. Weinberg, 227 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
“(Civ. Code, § 2794, subd. (4).) After the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, Wells Fargo filed an amended complaint, adding new allegations to its fourth cause of action, specifically that “under the Line of Credit, Defendants agreed in a *4 telephonic application…”
Schumm v. Berg, 231 P.2d 39 (Cal. 1951).
· cites it 2× “Among other reasons why the statute does not apply is the rule that a promise to answer for the debt of another is deemed an original obligation and not within the statute "Where the promise is upon a consideration beneficial to the promisor, whether moving from either party to…”
S. California Enter., Inc. v. D. N. & E. Walter & Co., 178 P.2d 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947).
“Moreover, a promise to answer for the obligation of another is deemed to be an original obligation of the *761 promisor and need not be in writing where the promise is upon the consideration of the performance of services by the promisee or the employment of a person at the…”
Freeman v. Jergins, 271 P.2d 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954).
“” (Civ. Code, § 2794.) The stockholders, other than defendants, made no promise to plaintiff and had no obligation to him.”
Michael Distrib. Co. v. Tobin, 225 Cal. App. 2d 655 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964).
· cites it 2× “5 A recognized exception to the statute occurs, however, when the oral promise is made for a consideration beneficial to the promisor, so that it appears that he gave the promise merely for his own pecuniary or business advantage.”
RCA Corp. v. Hunt, 133 Cal. App. 3d 903 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).
“The public policy of strictly construing surety contracts so as to protect the surety has long been held inapplicable where the guarantors gained a business or personal advantage from their guaranties.”
Raboff v. Albertson, 265 P.2d 139 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954).
“) The rule is stated: ‘Whenever a promise to answer an antecedent obligation of another is made upon a fresh consideration beneficial to the promisor, no matter from what source it may move, the promise is an original one and valid though oral; or, as was said in an early case,…”
Leslie v. Conway, 59 Cal. 442 (1881).
“(Civ. Code, § 2794.) The agreement was binding upon both parties.”
Alikhani v. Azartash, No. G061020 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2023).
· cites it 2× “In his reply brief, Alikhani identified subdivisions (2) and (4) of Civil Code section 2794 as “pertinent” to this appeal, but fails to explain how he has or can allege facts showing either contains an applicable exception.”
Lerch v. Gallup, 8 P. 322 (Cal. 1885).
“” (Civ. Code, § 2794.) Here, out of the money made by the levy and sale, the judgment was satisfied, and the defendants were discharged from their obligation to pay it.”
Cal. Civil Code § 2794(4): 2 cases
Schumm v. Berg, 231 P.2d 39 (Cal. 1951).
“Among other reasons why the statute does not apply is the rule that a promise to answer for the debt of another is deemed an original obligation and not within the statute "Where the promise is upon a consideration beneficial to the promisor, whether moving from either party to…”
S. California Enter., Inc. v. D. N. & E. Walter & Co., 178 P.2d 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947).
“Moreover, a promise to answer for the obligation of another is deemed to be an original obligation of the *761 promisor and need not be in writing where the promise is upon the consideration of the performance of services by the promisee or the employment of a person at the…”
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.