Capital Auto Financial v. Ohana CA2/7

DISCUSSION

“‘A lease agreement is subject to the general rules governing the interpretation of contracts. [Citation.] “A contract 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.”’” (Eucasia Schools Worldwide, Inc. v. DW August Co. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 176, 181.) “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.” (Civ. Code, § 1638.) We construe the language of the contract in the context of the instrument as a whole, applying the common understanding of the words used, while also considering what is reasonably meant in context. (Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Busby (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 876, 882.) When a contract contains a mistake of fact, the mistake is to be disregarded to give effect to the real intention of the parties. (See Civ. Code, § 1640 [“When, through fraud, mistake, or accident, a written contract fails to express the real intention of the parties, such intention is to be regarded, and the erroneous parts of the writing disregarded”].) Mistakes of fact include…