Okla. Stat. » Title 15 — CONTRACTS
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 235 (2026)

Duty of party attempting rescission

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

Rescission, when not effected by consent, can be accomplished only by the use, on the part of the party rescinding, of reasonable diligence to comply with the following rules: 1. He must rescind promptly, upon discovering the facts which entitle him to rescind, if he is free from duress, menace, undue influence, or disability, and is aware of his right to rescind; and, 2. He must restore to the other party everything of value which he has received from him under the contract; or must offer to restore the same, upon condition that such party shall do likewise, unless the latter is unable, or positively refuses to do so. R.L.1910, § 986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2022 · leading case: In Re Kaufman, 2001 OK 88 (Okla. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Kaufman, 2001 OK 88 (Okla. 2001). “" Here, not only does Kaufman not propose to repay the lump-sum payment received, he seeks to utilize assigned payments to fund his bankruptcy plan. Title 15 0.8.1991 § 235 provides in pertinent part: Rescission, when not effected by consent, can be accomplished only by the use,…”
Richardson v. Mustang Fuel Corp., 772 P.2d 1324 (Okla. 1989). · cites it 2× “1967); 15 O.S.1981 § 235. Under both Rose and King, supra, once Mustang stopped delivering gas to right of way grantors who had reserved the right to purchase gas, rescission would necessarily require that Mustang remove its pipelines from the landowners’ property in order to…”
Harkrider v. Posey, 2000 OK 94 (Okla. 2000). “He must rescind promptly, upon discovering the facts which entitle him to rescind, if he is free from duress, menace, undue influence, or disability, and is aware of his right to rescind; and, 2.”
Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co. of Dallas v. Strain, 377 P.2d 583 (Okla. 1962). · cites it 2× “* * * ’ ” (Emphasis supplied) The duties of a party who seeks to rescind a contract are defined in 15 O.S.1961 § 235, which provides: “Rescission, when not effected by consent, can be accomplished only by the use, on the part of the party rescinding, of reasonable diligence to…”
Scottsdale Ins. v. Tolliver, 261 F. App'x 153 (10th Cir. 2008). “The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the insured on the basis that the insurer failed to plead or prove return or tender of the premium, citing Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 235 . Strain, 377 P.”
Hooper v. Com. Lumber Co., 341 P.2d 596 (Okla. 1959). “Title 15 O.S.1951 § 235 provides that party proceeding to rescind a contract must either restore or offer to restore to other party everything of value which he has received from him under the contract.”
King v. Oakley, 434 P.2d 868 (Okla. 1967). “Our statute 15 O.S.1961, § 235, provides in part that the party rescinding must restore to the other party everything of value which he has received from him under the contract, or must offer to restore the same.”
Ware v. City of Tulsa, 312 P.2d 946 (Okla. 1957). “In the case at bar, if the judgment of the trial court is sustained as to rescission of the contract and deed, then it must be modified to meet the requirements of 15 O.S.1951 § 235 by ordering a restoration of everything of value which the city has received under the contract.”
Sneed v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Transp., 683 P.2d 525 (Okla. 1984). “1972), at 912, this Court stated the asserted willingness of one who seeks rescission to restore the opposite party to the status quo is a condition precedent to recission under 15 O.S.1961 § 235. This general rule was stated earlier in Great American Reserve Ins.”
Jones v. Goldberger, 323 P.2d 344 (Okla. 1958). “15 O.S.1951 § 235 prescribes the duty of one attempting rescission as follows : “1.”
Mock v. Stricklin, 315 P.2d 247 (Okla. 1957). “1941 § 23, rescind by complying with 15 O.S.1941 § 235, and such conveyance may be cancelled without proving inadequacy of consideration, fraud, menace, duress, undue influence of mistake, where he can do so without prejudice to the rights of third persons.”
Evans v. Ideal Brick & Brikcrete Mfg. Co., 287 P.2d 454 (Okla. 1955). “Plaintiff admits that the stock in question is void in view of the constitutional provision above referred to and therefore subject to cancellation, but asserts that because of the provisions of 15 O.S.1951 § 235, dealing with rescission of contracts, any judgment cancelling…”
Show all 25 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.