california civil code 1572

For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes, visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. ), The fraud exception is expressly stated in section 1856, subdivision (g): This section does not exclude other evidence . at p. 883; Pendergrass, supra, 4 Cal.2d at p. (E.g., 6 Corbin on Contracts (rev. "Fraud" means an intentional misrepr esentation, deceit, or concealment o fa material fact with the intention of depriving [name of plaintiff/decedent] of property or of a legal right or otherwise to cause [ name of plaintiff/decedent] injury. at p. 9 The doctrine of stare decisis expresses a fundamental policy . As an Oregon court noted: Oral promises made without the promisor.s intention that they will be performed could be an effective means of deception if evidence of those fraudulent promises were never admissible merely because they were at variance with a subsequent written agreement. (Howell v. Oregonian Publishing Co. (Or.Ct.App. (2)For a judicial determination that particular property is subject to escheat by this state pursuant to this chapter. Civil Code 1962. Art. 884-885. ), Thus, Pendergrass was plainly out of step with established California law. AN IRRELEVANT SECTION Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions. (See Recommendation Relating to Parol Evidence Rule (Nov. 1977) 14 Cal. Here is the complete ruling, issued on January 14, 2013: The parol evidence rule protects the integrity of written contracts by making their terms the exclusive evidence of the parties. (2)Where the holder is any person engaged in or transacting business in this state, although not domiciled in this state. (Cobbledick-Kibbe Glass Co. v. Pugh (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 123, 126; see West v. Henderson (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1578, 1584.) 344.) 264.) L.Rev. We granted the Credit Association.s petition for review. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. CA Civ Pro Code 1572 (2017) (a) The State Controller may bring an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, as specified in this section, for any of the following purposes: (1) To enforce the duty of any person under this chapter to permit the examination of the records of such person. FRAUDULENT DECEIT. As we discuss below, the fraud exception is a longstanding one, and is usually stated in broad terms. Code 1572 Download PDF Current through the 2022 Legislative Session. 638.) Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 33, and Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal.2d 222. Pennsylvania Title 3 - INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS. )7, 7 For instance, it has been held, erroneously, that Pendergrass has no application to a fraud cause of action. Malcolm Mackey 705, 716, in which to express our conviction: It is reasoning in a circle, to argue that fraud is made out, when it is shown by oral testimony that the obligee contemporaneously with the execution of a bond, promised not to enforce it. L.Rev. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or. presented in Civil Code section 1572. at p. 148, fns. Section 1542 now reads: "A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release. Yet not one of them considered the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. For instance, in Langley v. Rodriguez (1898) 122 Cal. Ohio L.Rev. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. Please verify the status of the code you are researching with the state legislature or via Westlaw before relying on it for your legal needs. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; 2. Through social of plaintiff] must prove all of the following: 1. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_1572. California Codes > Civil Code > Division 3 > Part 2 > Title 1 > Chapter 3 > 1572 Current as of: 2022 | Check for updates | Other versions In Towner, a debtor relied on an oral promise of indemnity against payment on surety bonds. (See Airs Intern., Inc. v. Perfect Scents Distributions (N.D.Cal. This evidence does not contradict the terms of an effective integration, because it shows that the purported instrument has no legal effect. (2 Witkin, Cal. You will lose the information in your envelope, Polupan, Alexandar vs. Current as of January 01, 2019 | Updated by FindLaw Staff. (2009) 82 So.Cal. Part 2 - CONTRACTS. Original Source: Civil Code section 1572 relates specifically to fraud committed by a party to a contract. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Law, supra, Torts, 781, p. (3) To enforce the delivery of any property to the State Controller as required under this chapter. Moreover, the authorities to which it referred, upon examination, provide little support for the rule it declared. L.Rev. ), Accordingly, we conclude that Pendergrass was an aberration. 17, 19; Ferguson v. Koch (1928) 204 Cal. ]; Pierce, at p. 331 [no allegation of fraud]; Booth, at p. 276 [no fraud; The whole case shows that Booth justly owed the defendant all the money claimed by him]; Watterson, at p. 745 [discussing mistake and ambiguity, but not fraud]. Law, supra, Contracts, 301, pp. Texas What If Your Law School Loses Its Accreditation? Contact us. Current as of January 01, 2019 | Updated by FindLaw Staff. FindLaw Codes may not reflect the most recent version of the law in your jurisdiction. Please verify the status of the code you are researching with the state legislature or via Westlaw before relying on it for your legal needs. at pp. The Fleury court affirmed, stating summarily: Plaintiff.s contention that the evidence was admitted in violation of the parol evidence rule is of course untenable, for although a written instrument may supersede prior negotiations and understandings leading up to it, fraud may always be shown to defeat the effect of an agreement. (Id. Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645. The Commission advised the Legislature to conform the terms of section 1856 with rulings handed down by this court, observing: As the parol evidence rule exists in California today, it bears little resemblance to the statutory statement of the rule. (Recommendation Relating to Parol Evidence Rule, 14 Cal. 423.) . Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. 2021 California Code Civil Code - CIV DIVISION 3 - OBLIGATIONS PART 2 - CONTRACTS TITLE 1 - NATURE OF A CONTRACT . Plaintiffs Lance and Pamela Workman fell behind on their loan payments to defendant Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association (Credit Association or Association). The trial court did not reach the issue of reliance in the summary judgment proceedings below, nor did the Court of Appeal address it.11, 11 In Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. 147. 206 & 211. c, p. We do not need to analyze these claims separately. ), Underlying the objection that Pendergrass overlooks the impact of fraud on the validity of an agreement is a more practical concern: its limitation on evidence of fraud may itself further fraudulent practices. The majority of other jurisdictions follow this traditional view. at pp. this Section. . New September 2003; Revised October 2008 Sources and Authority "Fraud" for Punitive Damages. 535, 538 (Note); see also Pacific State Bank v. Greene (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 375, 390, 392.) It is founded on the principle that when the parties put all the terms of their agreement in writing, the writing itself becomes the agreement. Holly E. Kendig (IX Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn rev. 1131-1132.). A promise made without any intention of performing it; or. Justia - California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2022) 4111. (Recommendation, at p. 152; see Stats. The Greene court conceded that evidence of the promise would have been inadmissible had it not been made when the contract was executed. California Civil Code Section 1572 CA Civ Code 1572 (2017) Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract: 1. Attorney's Fees in a California Partition Action; Code of Civil Procedure 873.920 CCP - Agreement; Contents (Partition by Appraisal) 1989) 778 P.2d 721 728, Towner v Lucas Exr. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; 2. On one occasion, Pendergrass was simply flouted. California may have more current or accurate information. A recent law review comment, while critical of Pendergrass, favors limiting the scope of the fraud exception and advocates an even stricter rule for sophisticated parties. . [(1857)] 54 Va. (13 Gratt.) Discover key insights by exploring we provide special support Oral promises not appearing in a written contract are admissible in court when pleading borrowers were tricked into signing agreements. Plaintiff failed to allege the ability to tender the amount of unpaid debt. (you are here), This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Go to previous versions ), Despite some criticism, Pendergrass has survived for over 75 years and the Courts of Appeal have followed it, albeit with varying degrees of fidelity. 1989) 778 P.2d 721, 728; Pinnacle Peak Developers v. TRW Investment Corp. (Ariz.Ct.App. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, . (c)In any case where no court of this state can obtain jurisdiction over the holder, the State Controller may bring an action in any federal or state court with jurisdiction over the holder. . The objective of the law of damages for breach of contract is to put the aggrieved party in the same . 394.) . AS TO THE 4TH CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF MUST PLEAD A SPECIFIC MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION AS TO TRUSTEE DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY, INTENT TO DEFRAUD, RELIANCE AND DAMAGE. at p. Finally, Pendergrass departed from established California law at the time it was decided, and neither acknowledged nor justified the abrogation. It purported to follow section 1856 (Pendergrass, supra, 4 Cal.2d at p. 264), but its restriction on the fraud exception was inconsistent with the terms of the statute, and with settled case law as well. L.Rev. Oregon 70, 80; Maxson v. Llewelyn (1898) 122 Cal. It contended the Workmans could not prove their claims because the parol evidence rule barred evidence of any representations contradicting the terms of the written agreement. agreement. more analytics for Mary H. Strobel, Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 05/10/2010, Hon. (Id. Law Revision Com. at p. 263), but ignored California law protecting against promissory fraud. CIV Code 1572 - 1572. (1); see Alling v. Universal Manufacturing Corp. (1992). Although the parol evidence rule results in the exclusion of evidence, it is not a rule of evidence but one of substantive law. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; 3. There is no dispute in this case that the parties. Accessing Verdicts requires a change to your plan. We find apt language in Towner v. Lucas Exr. ), Our conception of the rule which permits parol evidence of fraud to establish the invalidity of the instrument is that it must tend to establish some independent fact or representation, some fraud in the procurement of the instrument or some breach of confidence concerning its use, and not a promise directly at variance with the promise of the writing. 4 Code of Civil Procedure section 1856, subdivision (a) states: Terms set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement. Further unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. 1131.) Your credits were successfully purchased. (Pendergrass, supra, 4 Cal.2d at pp. 1985) Appeal, 758, p. 726; Moradi- Shalal v. Firemans Fund Ins. CA Civ Code 1572 (through 2012 Leg Sess), View Previous Versions of the California Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes, visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law. Aside from the above statutes, the California courts have long held the following elements as essential to prove in fraud: a) misrepresentation; b) knowledge that the misrepresentation is false; c) intent to deceive; d) justifiable reliance by the victim; and e) resulting damages. We respect the principle of stare decisis, but reconsideration of a poorly reasoned opinion is nevertheless appropriate.9 It is settled that if a decision departed from an established general rule without discussing the contrary authority, its weight as precedent is diminished. For these reasons, we overrule Pendergrass and its progeny, and reaffirm the venerable maxim stated in Ferguson v. Koch, supra, 204 Cal. ), Pendergrass has been criticized on other grounds as well. The fraud exception has been part of the parol evidence rule since the earliest days of our jurisprudence, and the Pendergrass opinion did not justify the abridgment it imposed. v. Pendergrass (1935) 4 Cal.2d 258, 263. L.Rev. (3)Where the property is tangible personal property and is held in this state. | https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1572/. more analytics for Malcolm Mackey. c, p. 452; Rest.2d Torts, 530, com. Code, sec. Proof of intent not to perform is required. Here, the alleged fraud relates to the assignment in 2010, or the loan origination which occurred in 2006. The written terms supersede statements made during the negotiations. Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts. 280. It provides that when parties enter an integrated written agreement, extrinsic evidence may not be relied upon to alter or add to the terms of the writing.4 (Casa Herrera, Inc. v. Beydoun (2004) 32 Cal.4th 336, 343 (Casa Herrera).) Rep. (1978) p. 1900 Intentional Misrepresentation. One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers. In opposition, the Workmans argued that Ylarregui.s misrepresentations were admissible under the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. Frederick C. Shaller PDF. 1. Meaning of California Civil Code Section 1542. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-1572.html, Read this complete California Code, Code of Civil Procedure - CCP 1572 on Westlaw. The most well-developed detour around Pendergrass has drawn a line between false promises at variance with the terms of a contract and misrepresentations of fact about the contents of the document. EFFECT OF THE 1872 CODES. This theory, on which the Court of Appeal below relied, was articulated at length in Pacific State Bank v. Greene, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at pages 390-396. 3 One of the forms of [a]ctual fraud is [a] promise made without any intention of performing it. (Civ. It is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system . (Id. Art. ), We note as well that the Pendergrass approach is not entirely without support in the treatises and law reviews. Civil Code 1102.3(a). At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Civil Code 1526. This cause of action cannot stand independently of the others, as to which the Court has sustained this demurrer. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_proc_code_section_1572. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1709/, Read this complete California Code, Civil Code - CIV 1709 on Westlaw. That statutory formulation of the parol evidence rule included the terms now found in section 1856, subdivisions (f) and (g). that a rule once declared in an appellate decision constitutes a precedent which should normally be followed . The eighth cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 2923.55 fails because said section was not effective until January 1, 2013. 534, Lindemann v. Coryell (1922) 59 Cal.App. try clicking the minimize button instead. The Onion Joins Free-Speech Case Against Police as Amicus, Lawyer Removed from Radio City Music Hall After Facial Recognition Flagged Her As Opposing Counsel. The Pendergrass court sought to prevent frauds and perjuries. (Id. 245-246.) CA Civ Code 1573 (2017) Constructive fraud consists: 1. The Bank of New York Mellon et al, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFT JEFFREY PETER VEEN, LANE BECKER ET AL VS. JULIE ANN HAMWOOD ET AL, ORDER SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAI, Notice CROSS-DEFENDANT DANIEL ROSENBLEDT'S DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S, MAXIMO INVESTMENTS, LLC vs. The trial court ruled in Ramacciotti.s favor. (last accessed Jun. 1572 Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract: 1.The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; The Pendergrass court relied primarily on Towner v. Lucas Exr., supra, 54 Va. 705, quoting that opinion at length. What If Your Law School Loses Its Accreditation? 661.) The seventh cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1572 fails for not being filed within the applicable statute of limitation. Subscribe to Justia's . Fine distinctions between consistent and inconsistent promises have been made, with no effort to evaluate the relative weight attached by the defrauded party to the consistent and inconsistent representations. at pp. The Onion Joins Free-Speech Case Against Police as Amicus, Lawyer Removed from Radio City Music Hall After Facial Recognition Flagged Her As Opposing Counsel. Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract: 1. The Court of Appeal in this case adopted such a narrow construction, deciding that evidence of an alleged oral misrepresentation of the written terms themselves is not barred by the Pendergrass rule. Codes Division 3, Obligations; Part 2, Contracts; Title 1, Nature of a Contract; Chapter 3, Consent; Section 1571. (Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 423; see California Trust Co. v. Cohn (1932) 214 Cal. . In defense, the borrowers claimed the bank had promised not to interfere with their farming operations for the remainder of the year, and to take the proceeds of those operations in payment. (Id. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or, Cite this article: FindLaw.com - California Code, Civil Code - CIV 1572 - last updated January 01, 2019 If this is the case, it may be an adequate defense for breaching a contract. Join thousands of people who receive monthly site updates. See also Restatement (Second) of Torts 531-533. 1902.False Promise. Codes Division 3, Obligations; Part 4, Obligations Arising From Particular Transactions; Title 1.5, Consumers Legal Remedies Act; Chapter 3, Deceptive Practices; Section 1770. =(302/CWW), Civil Code section 1572. agreement, but allow evidence of the same promises at the signing. Arizona Contact us. (d), and coms. [Citation. 937-938; Sweet, supra, 49 Cal. (Recommendation Relating to Parol Evidence Rule, 14 Cal. Section 1572, WORKING DIRT R2, a California limited liabil, Notice CROSS-DEFENDANT DANIEL ROSENBLEDT'D DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S, YEONG JOO KIM VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE ET AL, ABRAHAM MARTINEZ VS. But, as Justice Frankfurter wrote, it equally is true that [s]tare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, however recent and questionable, when such adherence involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience.. The distinction between promises deemed consistent with the writing and those considered inconsistent has been described as tenuous. (Coast Bank v. Holmes, supra, 19 Cal.App.3d at p. 591; see Simmons v. Cal. 263-264.) Finally, as to the Declaratory Relief Cause of Action, the demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Section 1659 - Promise presumed joint and several where all parties receive some benefit. (id. (Casa Herrera, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; 2. The Workmans did not make the required payments. Pendergrass failed to account for the fundamental principle that fraud undermines the essential validity of the parties. at p. [(1857)] 54 Va (13 Gratt.) Please verify the status of the code you are researching with the state legislature or via Westlaw before relying on it for your legal needs. 342, 347; Mooney v. Cyriacks (1921) 185 Cal. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; 3. Universal Citation: CA Civ Pro Code 1572 (2020) 1572. If you wish to keep the information in your envelope between pages, entrepreneurship, were lowering the cost of legal services and ACTUAL FRAUD, WHAT. 67; see Recommendation Relating to Parol Evidence Rule, 14 Cal. A misapprehension of the law by all parties, all supposing that they knew and understood it, and all making substantially the same mistake as to the law; or, 2. Civ. | https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-1572.html. ), On the other hand, Pendergrass has had its defenders. Eventually, the Workmans repaid the loan and the Association dismissed its foreclosure proceedings. But a promise made without any intention of performing it is one of the forms of actual fraud (Civ. 880-882.) FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. Current through the 2022 Legislative Session. more analytics for Jan Pluim, Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 09/29/2011, Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction), Hon. The listing broker has the responsiblity for the timely transmittal of the TDS form to the buyer. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1572/, Read this complete California Code, Civil Code - CIV 1572 on Westlaw. Alternatively, it can be mutual and release . Plaintiff failed to allege the ability to tender the amount of unpaid debt. IV - States' Relations 374-375. (Pendergrass, supra, 4 Cal.2d at p. 264, citing Harding v. Robinson (1917) 175 Cal. New York This unanimous decision overturns longstanding California Supreme Court decision from Bank of America etc. We held that negligent failure to acquaint oneself with the contents of a written agreement precludes a finding that the contract is void for fraud in the execution. In this case, the Greene rule would exclude Ylarregui.s alleged false promises in advance of the parties. 369, 376-377; Sweet, supra, 49 Cal. Civil Code 1962.7. ), Pendergrass also cited a number of California cases. 1980) 631 P.2d 540, 545 [collecting cases]; Sweet, supra, 49 Cal. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) . Art. 1987) 735 P.2d 659 661, Lazar v Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631 638, Pacific State Bank v. Greene (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 375 390 392, Pinnacle Peak Developers v. TRW Investment Corp. (Ariz.Ct.App. Civil Code section 1709 defines "deceit" generally as, "One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damage which he thereby suffers." Instances may include: The plaintiff provided misleading information. You can always see your envelopes Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract: 1.The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; 2.The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; 3.The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; 4.A promise made without any intention of performing it; or, Alabama Division 3 - OBLIGATIONS. All rights reserved. (See Casa Herrera, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 346; Duncan v. The McCaffrey Group, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 346, 369-377 [reviewing cases]; Price v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465, 484-485 [discussing criticism]; Sweet, Promissory Fraud and the Parol Evidence Rule (1961) 49 Cal. We sometimes refer to plaintiffs collectively as the Workmans. additional collateral, the Workmans pledged eight separate parcels of real property. )8 The Commission.s proposed revisions were adopted by the Legislature. Tenzer disapproved a 44-year-old line of cases to bring California law into accord with the Restatement Second of Torts, holding that a fraud action is not barred when the allegedly fraudulent promise is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. 4th 631. There are good reasons for doing so. Earlier cases from this court routinely stated without qualification that parol evidence was admissible to prove fraud. 1141 1146 fn. [Citations.] Evidence is deemed admissible for the purpose of proving fraud, without restriction, in the Restatements. (a)The State Controller may bring an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, as specified in this section, for any of the following purposes: (1)To enforce the duty of any person under this chapter to permit the examination of the records of such person. Failure to comply; service of process; mailing to address at which rent is paid. A general release can be one-sided and release only one party. 1987) 735 P.2d 659, 661; see Sweet, supra, 49 Cal. (2) For a judicial determination that particular . of 4; see Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 [An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract]; 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal.
Substitute For Madeira Wine, Revised Julian Calendar Vs Gregorian, Burger King 37 Cent Whopper, Is Shirley Caesar Dead, Articles C