Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 104 (2026)
Unlawful object - Performance impossible - Object vaguely
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
expressed. Where a contract has but a single object, and such object is unlawful, whether in whole or in part, or wholly impossible of performance, or so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascertainable, the entire contract is void. R.L.1910, § 924.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2024 · leading case: Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chem., LLC, 836 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2016).
Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chem., LLC, 836 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2016). “1954); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 104 (providing that a contract is void if its terms are “so vaguely expressed as to be wholly unascer-tainable”).”
Vice v. Conoco, Inc., 150 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 1998). “See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 2 (West 1996).”
Guthrie v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-30 of Adair Cnty., 1998 OK CIV APP 47 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997). “15 O.S.1991 § 104. Here, neither party disputes that the contract was valid when it was renewed by District in March 1991, inasmuch as Plaintiff, at the time, held a proper,' though temporary, counselor’s certificate.”
Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, L.L.P. v. Flynn, 2005 OK CIV APP 33 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005). “However, despite Flynn’s assertion to the contrary, we do not find that the provision of the partnership agreement at issue violates public policy as embodied in the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct. ¶ 15 Rule 1.5(e) of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct provides:…”
Brown v. Bivings, 277 P.2d 671 (Okla. 1954). “It is defendant’s position that our statute, 15 O.S.1951 § 104 (quoted hereafter) is decisive of the question.”
Dunn v. Dunn, 391 P.2d 885 (Okla. 1964). “The rule so expressed is declaratory of the statute, 15 O.S.1961 § 104, dealing with the nature of contracts.”
Leisure Vill. Operating, LLC. v. Prof'l Clinical Lab'y, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (N.D. Okla. 2011). “D. Finally, ProLab argues that it was impossible to perform a statutorily compli *1215 ant forensic test on the sample provided.”
Tulsa Ambulatory Procedure Ctr. v. Olmstead, 2024 OK 57 (Okla. 2024). “§ 1320a-7b and 15 O.S.2011, §§ 104, 109 (regarding voidability of unlawful contracts and contracts with unlawful consideration) in support of his illegality affirmative defense.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.