Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 51 (2026)
Essentials of consent
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The consent of the parties to a contract must be: 1. Free. 2. Mutual; and, 3. Communicated by each to the other. R.L.1910, § 896.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Appointment of Umpire for Hayes Fam. Trust v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997 (10th Cir. 2017).
Appointment of Umpire for Hayes Fam. Trust v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997 (10th Cir. 2017). “(quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 51 ). Mutuality requires that the parties “agree upon the same thing in the same sense.”
Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chem., LLC, 836 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2016). “”); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 51 (“The consent of the parties to a contract must be .”
In Re De-Annexation of Certain Real Prop. From City of Seminole, 2009 OK 18 (Okla. 2009). “" Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 51 (2001). "Consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.”
Dunbar Eng'g Corp. v. Rhinosystems, Inc., 2010 OK CIV APP 49 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010). “3d at 89 (citing 15 O.S.2001 § 51). Consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.”
Foster v. State, 551 P.2d 1119 (Okla. 1976). “Courts may not for their own convenience arbitrarily deprive persons of their statutory and constitutional rights. The provision of adequate notice is not an undue burden on the courts of this state.”
Moore v. Bob Howard German Imports, 2023 OK CIV APP 14 (Okla. Civ. App. 2023). “" 15 O.S. § 51. A party may rescind consent to a contract when consent is not free.”
Monexco, LLC v. Corp. Comm'n of Oklahoma, 2023 OK CIV APP 34 (Okla. Civ. App. 2022). “Further, it is doubtful that any "consent" to Badger's proposal was "free" in the sense required by 15 O.S.2011, § 51 to form the "existing contract" the Commission found governed the parties' relationship.”
Accelerated v. LMI II (10th Cir. 2024). “1995); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 51 (“The consent of the parties to a contract must be .”
Bidarka Gas Corp v. Merrill (W.D. Okla. 2020). “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 51 , 53, 57–59 (stating first that “[c]onsent of the parties to a contract must be: 1.”
Rose v. Koch (E.D. Okla. 2025). “LPL responds by challenging the scope and foundation of Matlock's investigation, emphasizing that evidence of electronic signature is not limited solely to Decedent's computer. Matlock himself admitted that he did not examine Decedent’s cell phone due to budget constraints and…”
Moore v. Bob Howard German Imports, 531 P.3d 657 (Okla. Civ. App. 2023). “" 15 O.S. § 51 15 O.S. § 52 15 O.S. § 53 See 15 O.”
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.