Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 137 (2026)

Writing excludes oral negotiations or stipulations

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

The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter, which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument. R.L.1910, § 942.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, 89 P.3d 1051.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn, 2004 OK 9, 89 P.3d 1051. · cites it 4× “" The court notes that it followed this course in the case before it.”
McCurdy Grp., LLC v. Am. Biomedical Grp., Inc., 9 F. App'x 822 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 137 . Applying the rule, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has indicated that “[w]here .”
Mercury Inv. Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 706 P.2d 523 (Okla. 1985). “15 O.S.1981 §§ 137 and 155. Under the terms of § 137, referred to generally as the parol evidence rule, testimonial evidence may be admissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written contract when fraud, accident or mistake is relied upon for relief from the binding effect…”
Beck v. Reynolds, 903 P.2d 317 (Okla. 1995). · cites it 2× “Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 137 (1991). Parol evidence was not admissible to show a previous contradictory oral agreement.”
Lewis v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Oklahoma Hous. Auth., 896 P.2d 503 (Okla. 1994). “15 O.S.1991 §§ 137, 155; Mercury, supra note 72 at 529.”
Am. Perforating Co. v. Oklahoma State Bank, 463 P.2d 958 (Okla. 1970). · cites it 5× “However, both sides assert that the trial court’s action was upon the theory that the oral agreement pleaded by the defendants as the basis of their defense and cause of action against the bank (and the parol evidence which would be required to establish such defense and cause…”
Griffin v. Griffin, 2004 OK CIV APP 58, 94 P.3d 96. · cites it 2× “" [8] See also, 15 O.S. § 137 ("The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter, which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”
Sokolosky v. Tulsa Orthopaedic Assocs., Inc. Pension Trust for Employees, 566 P.2d 429 (Okla. 1977). · cites it 2× “Demurrers to Appellant’s Answer and Cross-Petition were filed by Appellees alleging failure to state a cause of action and that Appellant’s allegations of fraud were barred by 15 O.S.1971, § 137. In addition, Appellees filed Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
Ollie v. Rainbolt, 669 P.2d 275 (Okla. 1983). “The terms of 15 O.S.1981 § 137 provide: “The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter, which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”
Bonner v. Oklahoma Rock Corp., 863 P.2d 1176 (Okla. 1993). “15 O.S.1991 §§ 137 and 155; Mercury Inv. Co.”
Snow v. Winn, 607 P.2d 678 (Okla. 1980). “Under the terms of 15 O.S.1971 § 137, referred to generally as the parol evidence rule, testimonial evidence may be admissible to vary or contradict the terms of a written contract when fraud, accident or mistake is relied upon for relief from the binding effect of a contract.”
Dismuke v. Cseh, 830 P.2d 188 (Okla. 1992). “15 O.S.1981, § 137. Also, in cases of uncertainty of terms in respect to ambiguity, the interpretation shall be in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making the contract as the promisees understood it.”
Show all 38 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.