Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 156 (2026)

Real intention not expressed - Error to be disregarded

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When through fraud, mistake, or accident, a written contract fails to express the real intention of the parties, such intention is to be regarded, and the erroneous parts of the writing disregarded. R.L.1910, § 950.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2021 · leading case: Holleyman v. Holleyman, 2003 OK 48 (Okla. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Holleyman v. Holleyman, 2003 OK 48 (Okla. 2003). “" 15 O.S.2001 § 156: "When through fraud, mistake, or accident a written contract fails to express the real intention of the parties, such intention is to be regarded, and the erroneous part of the writing disregarded.”

Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum Expl., Inc., 790 F.2d 828 (10th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “Shar-Alan points out that when a written contract fails to express the real intention of the parties, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 156 (1981) permits the erroneous parts of the contract to be disregarded.”

Crockett v. McKenzie, 867 P.2d 463 (Okla. 1994). “15 O.S.1991, § 156. 10 . R. Hemingway, The Law of Oil and Gas 78-84 (3rd ed.”

Smoot v. B & J Restoration Servs., Inc., 279 P.3d 805 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012). “" 15 O.S.2011 § 156. ¶ 10 Further, when interpreting a contract, "[the whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the others.”

Thompson v. Est. of H. H. Coffield, 894 P.2d 1065 (Okla. 1995). “The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the deed was not ambiguous, but did not address the Seller’s counterclaim for reformation.”

WLM Retail Trust v. Tramlaw Remainderman Ltd. P'ship, 2018 IL App (1st) 170819 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “¶ 27 Here, the general intent and purpose of the Agreement as a whole-as expressed in numerous other provisions-clearly reflect that the apparent limitation on WLM's purchase option contained in section 14 must be viewed as a mistake, an accident, or simply as a specific clause…”

Oklahoma Oncology & Hematology PC v. US Oncology, Inc., 2007 OK 12 (Okla. 2007). “See 15 O.S.2001, § 156. Reformation requires proof of the contract to be reformed and proof, by clear and convincing evidence, of a mutual mistake or mistake by one party and inequitable conduct on the part of the other that resulted in a written contract that did not reflect…”

Dillard Grp. of Texas Ltd v. Mer Holding Co. Inc (W.D. Okla. 2021). “” (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 156 )). Nor does the rule preclude evidence of subsequent modifications to a written contract.”

Terry Matthews, Inc. v. C & L CONTRACTING, INC., 959 F. Supp. 1434 (W.D. Okla. 1997). “See also Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 156 ; Thompson v. Estate of Coffield, 894 P.”

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.