Oklahoma Statutes
Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 63 (2026)
Mistake of fact defined
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
OK-LEGoklegislature.gov
JustiaOkla. Stat.
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Mistake of fact is a mistake not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in: 1. An unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present, material to the contract; or, 2. Belief in the present existence of a thing material to the contract, which does not exist, or in the past existence of such a thing, which has not existed. R.L.1910, § 908.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: French Energy, Inc. v. Alexander, 818 P.2d 1234 (Okla. 1991).
French Energy, Inc. v. Alexander, 818 P.2d 1234 (Okla. 1991). “Mistakes of fact and of law that will justify cancellation of a contract are defined by 15 O.S.1981 §§ 63, 64, infra. The terms of 15 O.”
Andrew Bradshaw v. Slm Corp., 652 F. App'x 593 (9th Cir. 2016). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 63 . Appellants pleaded a mistake “in prophecy, opinion, or in belief” concerning their ability to repay the loans, but not a mistake of fact going to the essence of the contract.”
Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum Expl., Inc., 790 F.2d 828 (10th Cir. 1986). “15, § 156 (1981) permits reformation of a contract in the event of mistake, Okla.Stat. tit. 15, § 63 (1981) limits mistakes of fact to “mistakes not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Chisum, 2004 OK CIV APP 20 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004). “” Relying on the definition of “mistake of fact” contained in 15 O.S.2001 § 63, DHS argues Chisum’s ignorance of the true facts concerning A’s paternity was caused by his “neglect of legal duty” because he did not insist on genetic testing before signing the acknowledgment.”
Budget Rent-A-Car of Tulsa v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 773 P.2d 736 (Okla. 1989). “See 15 O.S.1981 § 63 which provides: "Mistake of fact is a mistake not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in: 1.”
Webster v. Woods, 586 P.2d 337 (Okla. Civ. App. 1978). “Plaintiffs also contend that under 15 O.S.1971, § 63 the mistake in question was caused by the failure of the Defendants to read and understand the written agreement.”
Allison v. City of El Reno, Okl., 894 P.2d 1133 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995). “15 O.S.1991 § 63. A mutual mistake of fact, therefore, requires both parties to labor under the same misconception as to the past or present existence of a fact material to the offer.”
Vinson Supply Co. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 767 P.2d 406 (Okla. 1988). “The Commission urges this Court to look to the statutory contract definition of mistake of fact as provided in 15 O.S.1981 § 63, as follows: “Mistake of fact is a mistake not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in: 1.”
Stillwater Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Woolley, 823 P.2d 374 (Okla. Civ. App. 1991). “15 O.S.1981 § 63; Crabb v. Chisum, 183 Okla.”
Armbruster v. Thetis Energy Corp., 675 P.2d 476 (Okla. Civ. App. 1984). “2d 651 (1973); 15 O.S.1981 § 63. 3 . Davidson v. First Bank and Trust Co.”
Accelerated v. LMI II (10th Cir. 2024). “10 Appellate Case: 23-6062 Document: 010111023376 Date Filed: 03/28/2024 Page: 11 Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 63 . Other Oklahoma statutes also establish relevant principles of contractual interpretation.”
Mecom v. Morris (N.D. Okla. 2022). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 63 (2). In contrast, a mistake of law arises only from “[a] misapprehension of the law by all parties, all supposing that they knew and understood it, and all making substantially the same mistake as to the law,” or “[a] misapprehension of the law by one…”
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.