In an agreement with a regulatory agency with enforcement power, one of the requirements was "substantial compliance." The agreement failed to define "substantial compliance." How will a California court define or determine the meaning of substantial compliance in this context? So far I have found many cases discussing the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance applied in cases where there is a question of compliance with a specific statute or Act. I am looking more for cases where the term substantial compliance was used in the contract/agreement but was not defined. I am looking for California cases and 9th Circuit cases on point.