Opinion ID: 3032617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alexander v. Angel

Text: First, Judge Beezer contends that we mistakenly rely on Alexander v. Angel in concluding that the changes between the 1994 Loan agreement and the later oral agreement were substantial enough to constitute novation. Judge Beezer con- tends that Angel is inapt because, unlike in this case, there was a substitution of parties under California Civil Code § 1351(b) rather than a substitution of agreements between 8200 FANUCCHI & LIMI FARMS v. UNITED AGRI PROD’S the same parties under § 1351(a). Judge Beezer is correct that Angel is a substitution-of-parties case. But he is incorrect in putting the case to one side. As Judge Beezer himself recog- nizes in a paragraph in which he discusses Angel, the fundamental issue is whether “ ‘the parties intended to extinguish rather than merely modify the original agreement.’ ” Concurrence at 8210 (quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bank of Am. NT & SA, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 521, 525 (Ct. App. 1995) (emphasis added)). The question the Court answered in Angel was whether the changes between the two contracts were sufficiently “drastic” such that there was an “extinguishment” of the earlier contract. See 37 Cal. 2d at 861. That is exactly the question at issue in this case.