§

Cal. Civ. Code § 1643

Section 1643 - Lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect
Section 1643 - Lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect

5 Citing briefs

  1. Teledyne Risi, Inc. v. Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Breach of Contract and Counterclaims

    Filed July 10, 2017

    California law disfavors interpreting contracts in a manner that renders the agreement invalid or unenforceable. CAL. CIV. CODE § 1643. Furthermore, whether Case 2:15-cv-07936-SJO-GJS Document 83 Filed 07/10/17 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:663 4 2:15-CV-07936-SJO-GJS PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the material terms of a contract are sufficiently definite, and thus enforceable, is a question of law.

  2. BALTAZAR v. FOREVER 21

    Appellants, Forever 21, Inc., Forever 21 Logistics, LLC, Herber Corleto, and Darlene Yu, Answer Brief on the Merits

    Filed October 28, 2013

    (Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 741; Mitri v. Arnel Management Co. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4” 1164, 1170). Further, California. Civil Code §1643 requires that a contract be construed to give it lawful effect. (Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 48 Cal.4” at p. 682; Roman v. Superior Court, supra, 172 Cal.App.4" at 1473).

  3. Valeria Guerrero-Hernandez v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC et al

    OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Enforce Class Action Settlement Agreement and Send Additional Notices to Class Members; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Jennifer L. Katz in Support Thereof 76

    Filed March 12, 2019

    Therefore, in addition to the plain language of the Agreement being contrary to Defendant’s interpretation, Plaintiff’s interpretation is supported by the canon of contract interpretation that: “A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intent of the parties.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1643. Rather than timely make its election, Defendant instead waited for preliminary approval to be granted, for the Court to certify a Settlement Class which includes post November 2017 employees, and for notice to go out to the certified Settlement Class.

  4. Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc.,

    RESPONSE

    Filed February 19, 2013

    ........................................................ 28 Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................. 15, 27 Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft, 2008 WL 474248 (W.D. Wash. Feb 4, 2008) ............................................................. 17, 20, 23 Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic Int'l, Inc., 685 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................... 17 Wilson v. Nobell, 119 Cal. App. 2d 341 (Cal Ct. App. 1953) .............................................................................. 14 STATUTES 17 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................. 13 California Civil Code § 1641 ........................................................................................................ 11 California Civil Code § 1643 ........................................................................................................ 13 California Civil Code § 3300 ........................................................................................................ 32 California Civil Code § 1654 ........................................................................................................ 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 ................................................................................................. 34 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 ............................................................................................... 10 Case3:11-cv-01543-CRB Document323 Filed02/19/13 Page5 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 OPPOSITION TO EA’S THIRD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3:11-CV-01543

  5. Kiland et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed October 22, 2010

    Civ. Code § 1638.................................................................................................................... 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 1642................................................................................................................ 9, 10 Cal. Civ. Code § 1643.................................................................................................................... 10 Cal. Lab. Code § 970 ................................................................................................................... 5, 8 Case4:10-cv-04105-SBA Document34 Filed10/22/10 Page4 of 16 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FR AN C I SC O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DB2/22004677.1 1 CASE NO.