Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 66 (2026)

Mutual consent defined

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense. But in certain cases, defined by the article on interpretation, they are to be deemed so to agree without regard to the fact. R.L.1910, § 911.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Appointment of Umpire for Hayes Fam. Trust v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997 (10th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

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, § 66 ). And for insurance settlements covered by Okla.”

In Re De-Annexation of Certain Real Prop. From City of Seminole, 2009 OK 18 (Okla. 2009). “" Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 66 (2001). Therefore, "an acceptance will not bind the offeror unless it is unconditional, identical to the offer, and does not modify, delete or introduce any new terms into the offer.”

Dunbar Eng'g Corp. v. Rhinosystems, Inc., 2010 OK CIV APP 49 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010). “(citing 15 O.S.2001 § 66). Therefore, an acceptance will not bind the offeror unless it is unconditional, identical to the offer, and does not modify, delete or introduce any new terms into the offer.”

Dillard Grp. of Texas Ltd v. Mer Holding Co. Inc (W.D. Okla. 2021). · cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 66 (“Consent is not mutual unless the parties all agree upon the same thing in the same sense.”

Choice Hotels Int'l v. Papamkrupa Hosp. (10th Cir. 2021). “Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 66 . III. Though Paramkrupa refused to sign, the parties reached a meeting of the minds.”

Accelerated v. LMI II (10th Cir. 2024). “” Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 66 ; see also Beck, 903 P.”

Rose v. Koch (E.D. Okla. 2025). “Matlock himself admitted that he did not examine Decedent’s cell phone due to budget constraints and acknowledged that further research would be necessary regarding whether any other device was used to execute the 2021 account documents.”

Summa Eng'g, Inc. v. Crawley Petroleum Corp., 286 P.3d 653 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011). “" 15 O.S.2001 § 66. "An acceptance will not bind the offeror unless it is unconditional, identical to the offer, and does not modify, delete or introduce any new terms into the offer.”

Lewis v. Pilot Corp., 46 F. App'x 900 (10th Cir. 2002). “, referring to the gas station as real property, requiring warranties of title, requiring environmental cleanliness), indicated an expectation that the purchase would involve land.”

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.