Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 1. PERSONS / PART 2.9. CALIFORNIA FAIR DEALERSHIP LAW
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 82 (2026)

California Fair Dealership Law

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This part shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are as follows:

(a)The prohibition of discrimination based upon any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51 in the granting, sale, transfer, bequest, termination, and nonrenewal of dealerships.

(b)The requirements of this part shall not be varied by contract or agreement and any portion of a contract or agreement purporting to do so is void and unenforceable.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1949–1970 · leading case: McClure v. Donovan, 205 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1949).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McClure v. Donovan, 205 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1949). “The “original complaint” was filed by “the father of the minor” in his own name; a “demurrer” thereto “was sustained with leave to amend”; and thereafter “an amended complaint was filed joining [the] minor, as party plaintiff, the minor appearing by her [father as] guardian ad…”
Maslow v. Maslow, 255 P.2d 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953). “(Civ. Code, § 82.) The presumption is against fraud and it is not overcome by shadowy evidence.”
Turner v. Turner, 334 P.2d 1011 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959). “That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was without the capability of consenting thereto as provided for in Section 56 of this code; unless, *643 after attaining the age of consent, such party for any time freely cohabited with the other as…”
Fry v. Fry, 5 Cal. App. 3d 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). “The Palumbo marriage was annulled on October 28, 1966, on the ground that he had another wife living, the trial judge finding the marriage void (Civ. Code, § 82, subd. Two) from the beginning.”
Gilb v. Gilb, 339 P.2d 176 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959). “(Civ. Code, § 82, subd. 2.) In her answer to the cross-complaint Eva alleged that she obtained a valid decree of divorce from Kennedy in Las Vegas, Nevada, on May 28, 1937, and she alleged as affirmative defenses that appellant had waived his right to contest the Nevada decree,…”
Goldman v. Goldman, 336 P.2d 952 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959). “’’ (Civ. Code, §82.) A pleading in substantially the same words as those used in the finding in this case was treated as sufficient in McClure v.”
Ruiz v. Ruiz, 6 Cal. App. 3d 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). “The amicus brief also points to the provision that “[a] marriage may be annulled” for specific grounds, including nonage (Civ. Code, § 82, now § 4425). The argument is that use of the word “may” renders the annulment wholly discretionary with the trial court.”
Stepanek v. Stepanek, 193 Cal. App. 2d 760 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961). · cites it 2× “The court thus did not indicate whether the annulment had been granted on the basis of fraud [Civ. Code, § 82, subd. 4], or physical incapacity [Civ.”
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.