Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

A contract of suretyship. The cases make clear that the surety's obligation is no greater than that of the principal under the underlying contract. In Bloom v. Bender (1957) 48 Cal. 2d 793, 803 [313 P.2d 568], the court explained 'that a surety is not liable where the principal does not incur any obligation under the basic contract (Atowich v. Zimmer (1933), 218 Cal. 763, 769 [25 P.2d 6]), or where the principal has fully performed his contract obligations [citation],' although the surety may be liable even if the principal is discharged without fully performing the contract obligation 'where the principal incurs an actual obligation.' (See also Regents of University of California v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 624, 636, fn. 4 [147 Cal. Rptr. 486, 581 P.2d 197] [finding an exception when the statute of limitations had expired as to the principal but not the surety, even though 'the general principle, codified in Civil Code section 2809, is that the liability of principal and surety are commensurate' (original italics)]; U.S. Leasing Corp. v. DuPont (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 275, 290 [70 Cal. Rptr. 393, 444 P.2d 65] ['since the liability ...

Register or login to access full content