Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 106 (2026)

Good consideration defined

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any benefit conferred, or agreed to be conferred upon the promisor, by any other person, to which the promisor is not lawfully entitled, or any prejudice suffered or agreed to be suffered by such person, other than such as he is at the time of consent lawfully bound to suffer, as an inducement to the promisor, is a good consideration for a promise. R.L.1910, § 926.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1954–2025 · leading case: Est. of Hoobler, 925 P.2d 13 (Okla. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Hoobler, 925 P.2d 13 (Okla. 1996). · cites it 4× “8 Title 15 O.S.1991 § 106 provides that prejudice suffered by a party is sufficient consideration to support the enforcement of a contract.”
Hargrave v. Canadian Valley Elec. Coop., Inc., 792 P.2d 50 (Okla. 1990). “See 15 O.S.1981, § 106; State ex rel. Derryberry v.”
Wright v. State, 2001 OK CR 19, 30 P.3d 1148. “1991, § 101; 15 O.S.1991, § 106. On the other hand, the term consideration can also be understood to mean that the State would merely take Poorboy's testimony into consideration, i.”
Dangott v. ASG Indus., Inc., 558 P.2d 379 (Okla. 1976). “…v. American Bakery '& Confectionery Workers Union amd Industry National Welfare Fund, 527 P.2d 10 (Okl.1974). 5 . 15 O.S.1971 § 106.”
Ellis v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 450 F. Supp. 412 (E.D. Okla. 1978). “15 O.S. § 106; Nadel v. Zeligson, 207 Okl.”
In re Manchester Gas Storage, Inc., 309 B.R. 354 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2004). “15 O.S. § 106. In layman’s terms, the authors of Williston on Contracts define consideration as a “bargained-for exchange,” that is, “the exchange or price requested and received by the promisor for his promise.”
State ex rel. Derryberry v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 516 P.2d 813 (Okla. 1973). “2d 904, 906 (1951); 15 O.S.1971 § 106. In the absence of fraud, duress, undue influence, or mistake, the fairness, unfairness, folly or wisdom or inequality of contracts are immaterial.”
Commodore Home Sys., Inc. v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., 780 P.2d 674 (Okla. 1989). “15 O.S.1981 § 106. Simply recognizing the rule is not the same as resolving the issues raised by Commodore’s allegations and Citicorp’s response.”
Schulte v. Apache Corp., 949 P.2d 291 (Okla. 1998). “They claimed such representations were consistent with industry custom and usage that as working interest owners they would receive a proportionate share of the earned acreage.”
Chadwell v. English, 652 P.2d 310 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982). “15 O.S.1971 § 106. The record does clearly reflect consideration.”
Midwest Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. Elec. Regulator Corp., 435 P.2d 89 (Okla. 1967). “purported guarantee of payment of Midwest’s account therein expressed (“invoices to be paid according to our established paying policy”) was any different from the “net 30” typed on the Purchase Order when plaintiff received it, the evidence failed to show that the letter,…”
Springfield Holding Co. v. Stone, 335 F. App'x 699 (10th Cir. 2009). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 106. See generally Taylor v.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.