CIV § 1689

Grounds to rescind: mistake, duress, fraud (CIV § 1689)

CIV § 1689 allows rescission if consent was obtained by mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, or if consideration fails in whole or part.

Official text CIV § 1689 — California
  • (a) A contract may be rescinded if all the parties thereto consent.
  • (b) A party to a contract may rescind the contract in the following cases:
  • (1) If the consent of the party rescinding, or of any party jointly contracting with him, was given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds, or of any other party to the contract jointly interested with such party.
  • (2) If the consideration for the obligation of the rescinding party fails, in whole or in part, through the fault of the party as to whom he rescinds.
  • (3) If the consideration for the obligation of the rescinding party becomes entirely void from any cause.
  • (4) If the consideration for the obligation of the rescinding party, before it is rendered to him, fails in a material respect from any cause.
  • (5) If the contract is unlawful for causes which do not appear in its terms or conditions, and the parties are not equally at fault.
  • (6) If the public interest will be prejudiced by permitting the contract to stand.
  • (7) Under the circumstances provided for in Sections 39, 1533, 1566, 1785, 1789, 1930 and 2314 of this code, Section 2470 of the Corporations Code, Sections 331, 338, 359, 447, 1904 and 2030 of the Insurance Code or any other statute providing for rescission.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1689 sets out when a contract can be undone rather than sued on. Subdivision (a) covers the simple case: a contract may be rescinded if all the parties consent. Subdivision (b) lists the seven cases in which one party may rescind unilaterally.

The first is the largest: where the consent of the rescinding party, or of a party jointly contracting with them, was given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud or undue influence exercised by or with the connivance of the party against whom rescission is sought, or of another party jointly interested with them. That subsumes the whole of §§ 1565 to 1578 on defective consent. The next three concern consideration: where the consideration for the rescinding party's obligation fails, wholly or partly, through the fault of the other party; where it becomes entirely void from any cause; and where, before it is rendered, it fails in a material respect from any cause. The fifth covers a contract unlawful for causes not appearing in its terms where the parties are not equally at fault. The sixth allows rescission where the public interest will be prejudiced by permitting the contract to stand. The seventh incorporates the circumstances in a list of other statutes providing for rescission.

Rescission is a different thing from a damages claim: it unwinds the bargain and puts the parties back, which is why § 1691 requires prompt notice and restoration of everything of value received, and § 1692 governs the relief available once rescission is effected. Choosing between rescinding and affirming the contract and suing for damages has consequences that are hard to reverse, and it is the point at which to get advice rather than to act first.

When it applies

  • You signed after being told something that turned out to be false
  • You agreed under pressure or threats
  • An elderly relative signed something under the influence of someone close to them
  • You paid for something the other side can no longer supply at all
  • Both sides were mistaken about a fundamental fact
  • The other side's failure has destroyed the point of the deal

What this section does not say

  • It does not give a right to change your mind. Regret, a better offer or a shift in circumstances are not among the grounds listed in subdivision (b).
  • It is not the three-day cooling-off right. Cancellation of a home solicitation contract runs under §§ 1689.6 and 1689.7 and does not require any ground at all.
  • It does not effect the rescission. Section 1691 sets what the rescinding party must do — prompt notice and restoration or an offer to restore — and doing nothing does not unwind a contract.
  • It is not the same as damages. Rescission unwinds the bargain; a party who wants to keep the contract and be compensated is making a different claim, and the choice matters.
  • Failure of consideration is not disappointment. Paragraph (2) requires failure through the fault of the party against whom rescission is sought, and paragraph (4) requires failure in a material respect.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A small workshop buys a machine described as new. It arrives with wear marks and a service history, and the workshop would never have paid that price for a refurbished unit.

How the wording applies

Subdivision (b)(1) allows rescission where consent was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, which is a different remedy from suing for the difference in value. What it turns on is what the buyer wants and what was represented: rescission unwinds the whole bargain, so the buyer has to be willing to give the machine back, and section 1691 sets out what has to be done to make it effective.

How the parties settled it

The seller collects the machine and refunds the price less an agreed sum for the weeks of use, and the parties record that neither has any further claim.

Illustrative example

An elderly parent signs over a share of a property to one adult child after months in which that child handled all their correspondence and drove them to the appointment. The other children learn of it afterwards.

How the wording applies

Undue influence is a ground for rescission under subdivision (b)(1). The fact this hinges on is the relationship at the time of signing, meaning dependence, who arranged the meeting and whether there was independent advice, rather than whether the parent understood the words on the page.

How the parties settled it

The transfer is reversed and the property is dealt with under a written family arrangement providing for the parent's care costs, with each side taking independent advice before signing.

Illustrative example

Someone pays in advance for a bespoke item and the maker then closes the workshop and cannot make it at all.

How the wording applies

Paragraph (b)(2) allows rescission where the consideration fails through the fault of the party against whom rescission is sought. It turns on fault and materiality: a maker who has simply stopped trading is a different case from one held up by a supplier, and paragraph (b)(4) requires the failure to be in a material respect.

How the parties settled it

The maker refunds the deposit in instalments over an agreed period, with the whole balance falling due at once if an instalment is missed.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Ribeiro v. County of El Dorado, 195 Cal. App. 4th 354 (2011)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether a purchaser of tax-defaulted property at a tax sale may rescind the contract under Civil Code section 1689 based on unilateral mistake, or whether statutory remedies are exclusive.

What it held

The statutory remedies are exclusive at tax sales, and a purchaser cannot rescind under Civil Code section 1689; the doctrine of caveat emptor bars such a claim.

In the court's words
We hold that the statutory remedies are exclusive at tax sales and reject Schultz.

Schauer v. Mandarin Gems of California, Inc., 125 Cal. App. 4th 949 (2005)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether a third party beneficiary can seek rescission of a contract under Civil Code section 1689.

What it held

Only the parties to a contract may rescind it; a third party beneficiary cannot rescind under section 1689.

In the court's words
Civil Code section 1689 limits its grant of rescission rights to the contracting parties.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

CIV § 1691 Promptly give notice & restore value (CIV § 1691) CIV § 1572 Actual fraud: 5 types under California CIV § 1572 CIV § 1689.6 California Civil Code § 1689.6 - The three-day right to cancel a door-to-door contract

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1689 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages