California Codes

Cal. Commercial Code § 2202 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Terms with respect to which the confirmatory memoranda of the parties agree or which are otherwise set forth in a record intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement but may be explained or supplemented:

(a)By course of dealing, course of performance, or usage of trade (Section 1303); and

(b)By evidence of consistent additional terms unless the court finds the record to have been intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2023 · leading case: Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Ins., 176 F. Supp. 3d 949 (E.D. Cal. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Ins., 176 F. Supp. 3d 949 (E.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Moreover, California Commercial Code section 2202, which the Law Revision Commission Comments describe as “comparable to” Code of Civil Procedure section 1856, also uses the words “explained.”

In Re Pac. Sunwest Printing, 6 B.R. 408 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1980). · cites it 2× “It provides in essence, that an integrated document may not be contradicted by prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, but can be explained or supplemented by course of dealing, usage of trade, course, of performance and consistent additional terms (unless the writing was…”

Maple Shade Motor Corp. v. Kia Motors of Am., Inc., 384 F. Supp. 2d 770 (D.N.J. 2005). “M of the Agreement, 9 signed by Dimmerman, expressly provides that “there are no other agreements or understandings either oral or written between the parties affecting this Agreement or relating to any of the subject matters covered by this Agreement.”

In Re Amica, Inc., 135 B.R. 534 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992). “The Agreement here purports to be an “integration” in the last paragraph of that document. 13. Parol evidence may be used for a variety of purposes when interpreting an integrated agreement: (a) Parol evidence is admissible to explain ambiguities or undefined terms in a contract.”

Comput. Place, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 607 F. Supp. 822 (N.D. Cal. 1984). “1979); Cal.Com.Code § 2202; Cal.Code Civ.Pro. § 1856(a).”

Birsner v. Bolles, 20 Cal. App. 3d 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971). “” As standards for the credibility of the evidence, the court applied both the test set forth in Restatement of Contracts, section 240(1) (b), and Uniform Commercial Code section 2-202 [Deering’s Cal. Com. Code, § 2202], The court noted at pages 227 and 228, that the Restatement…”

Performance Chevrolet, Inc. v. Mkt. Scan Info. Sys., Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Idaho 2005). “See Cal. Comm. Code § 2202 ; Idaho Code § 28-2-202 .”

Bjb Elec. Lp v. Bridgelux, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 3× “California Commercial Code § 2202 and California Civil Procedure Code § 1856 25 Bridgelux contends Cal.”

Bjb Elec. Lp v. Bridgelux, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023). “It is evidence of the parties’ 4 circumstances when negotiating the Letter Agreement, not of a course of dealing between the 5 parties or any other category of admissible evidence outlined in Cal. Com. Code § 2202 . Likewise, 6 though Defendant’s previous purchase orders (which…”

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.