Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 159 (2026)

Interpretation favors validity

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties. R.L.1910, § 953.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1960–2021 · leading case: May v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2006 OK 100 (Okla. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
May v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2006 OK 100 (Okla. 2006). “See the provisions of 15 O.S.2001 § 159, which state: A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”
Bank of the Wichitas v. Ledford, 2006 OK 73 (Okla. 2006). “See the provisions of 15 O.S.2001 § 159, which state: “A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”
Crockett v. McKenzie, 867 P.2d 463 (Okla. 1994). “Title 15 O.S.1991, § 159 provides: “A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”
Capron & Edwards P.C. v. Holden & Carr, P.C., 331 F. App'x 563 (10th Cir. 2009). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 159 . The district court’s construction of ¶A(3) does not make the Fee Agreement definite or capable of being carried into effect because a contingent fee cannot be calculated prior to the recovery of money damages.”
Arvest Bank v. SpiritBank, N.A., 2008 OK CIV APP 55 (Okla. Civ. App. 2008). “15 O.S.2001 § 159. ¶ 24 That being so, there was no intent to discharge the entire rights and liability under the Spirit floor plan, and the parties to the Settlement Agreement agreed that the right to proceed against the collateral for the loan, that is, to proceed in rem, was…”
Ledford v. Wheeler, 620 P.2d 903 (Okla. Civ. App. 1980). “Consistent with this is a presumption, codified in 15 O.S.1971, § 159, that parties do not intend void acts.”
Clifton-Davis v. State, 930 P.2d 833 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996). “, the intern’s relationship with the facility deteriorated to the point that the facility requested that the intern be removed; the facility provided documentation showing the intern’s performance clearly did not meet the facility’s standards; and the facility has advised the…”
BAP, LLP v. Pearman, 2011 OK CIV APP 30 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011). “15 O.S.2001 § 159. Finally, if the parties in fact did not intend the dispute resolution procedure to apply to the manager, they could have easily made this clear by using the term "partners" rather than "parties.”
Bays Expl., Inc. v. PenSa, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (W.D. Okla. 2011). “Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 157. 5 A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect.”
Burgess v. Johnson (10th Cir. 2020). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 159 (“A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.”
In re Craig Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 572 B.R. 340 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 2017). “To be sure, parties to the Confirmed Plan do not agree whether such claims should be treated as priority claims, but the Court does not believe any party intended this language to exclude all post-petition unsecured claims from administrative status, “Words in a contract which…”
Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Bullock (W.D. Okla. 2021). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 159 . In this case, the identity of the contingent beneficiaries was clearly articulated in the Application despite the omission of names and social security numbers, and there is no question that Troy Bullock intended to designate his children with…”
Show all 14 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.