Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 152 (2026)
Intent controls
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties, as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. R.L.1910, § 946.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 2009 OK 6 (Okla. 2009).
Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enter., LLC, 2009 OK 6 (Okla. 2009). “" Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 152 (2001). "A fundamental precept of contract law in Oklahoma is that the law will not make a better contract than the parties themselves entered.”
Pitco Prod. Co. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc., 2003 OK 5 (Okla. 2003). “The text of 15 O.S.1991 § 152 provides: A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties, as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.”
May v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2006 OK 100 (Okla. 2006). “See the terms of 15 O.S.2001 § 152, which provide: A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties, as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.”
Mercury Inv. Co. v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 706 P.2d 523 (Okla. 1985). “15 O.S.1981 § 152. 11 . 15 O.S.1981 §§ 137 and 155.”
Walker v. BuildDirect.com Tech., Inc., 2015 OK 30 (Okla. 2015). “Merely placing quotation marks around the phrase terms of sale, without more, was insufficient to convey to the Walkers that BuildDirect was making reference to anything other than the multitude of sales terms already expressly enumerated within the four-corners of the Contract.”
Porter v. Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2014 OK 50 (Okla. 2014). “However, "neither forced nor strained construction will be indulged, nor will any provision be taken out of context and narrowly focused upon to create and then construe an ambiguity so as to import a [more] favorable consideration to either party than that expressed in the…”
Holleyman v. Holleyman, 2003 OK 48 (Okla. 2003). “" 15 O.S.2001 § 152: "A contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties, as it existed at the time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful.”
Colclasure v. Colclasure, 295 P.3d 1123 (Okla. 2012). “Title 15 O.S.2011 § 152; Oxley v. General Atlantic Resources, Inc.”
Broom v. Wilson Paving & Excavating, Inc., 2015 OK 19 (Okla. 2015). “2d 372, 376-77 ; 15 O.S.2011, §§ 152, 154, 160. And the first guidepost we must observe in insurance-contract construction is that "[p]arties are at liberty to contract for insurance to cover such risks as they see fit and they are bound by terms of the contract.”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Brooks Fiber Commc'ns of Oklahoma, Inc., 235 F.3d 493 (10th Cir. 2000). “” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 152 (2000). “When a contract is reduced to writing, the intention of the parties is to be interpreted from the writing alone, and if unambiguous, the language of the contract controls.”
Osprey L.L.C v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co., 1999 OK 50 (Okla. 1999). “Title 15 O.S.1991 § 152; 15 O.S.1991 § 154; Mercury Inv.”
Ollie v. Rainbolt, 669 P.2d 275 (Okla. 1983). “The terms of 15 O.S.1981 § 152 provide that “[a] contract must be so interpreted as to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties, as it existed at the time of contracting .”
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.