Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)

Citation: Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)
Parent Document: Chacon v. Litke, 181 Cal. App. 4th 1234 (2010)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2010-01-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2256036/chacon-v-litke/ ↗

Full Text

789 chars

As a contract, a stipulation “ ‘must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.’ (Civ. Code, § 1636; [citation].) The intention of the parties must be first determined from the language of the contract itself. (Civ. Code, § 1638; [citation].) However, where the language of the contract is ambiguous, it is the duty of the court to resolve the ambiguity by taking into account all the facts, circumstances and conditions surrounding the execution of the contract. (Civ. Code, § 1647; [citation].) In resolving ambiguity, the court may consider not only the express, but the implied terms of the contract as well.” (Floystrup v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd.

Other Sections in This Document (180)

Full Text