Okla. Stat. » Title 23 — DAMAGES
Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 21 (2026)

General rule as to damages

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

For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this chapter, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom. No damages can be recovered for a breach of contract, which are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin. R.L. 1910, § 2852.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom.”
Withrow v. Red Eagle Oil Co., 755 P.2d 622 (Okla. 1988). · cites it 3× “They point to the distinction between interest allowed by statute or agreement as compensation for use or detention of money and interest as an element of damages necessary to compensate a plaintiff for all the detriment proximately caused by a defendant’s actions.”
Cities Serv. Co. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 1999 OK 14 (Okla. 1999). · cites it 2× “23 O.S.1991 § 21. Its pertinent provision provides: "No damages can be recovered for a breach of contract, which are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin.”
Ferrell Constr. Co. v. Russell Creek Coal Co., 645 P.2d 1005 (Okla. 1982). · cites it 2× “23 O.S.1971, § 21 provides: “For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this chapter, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or…”
Specialty Beverages, L.L.C v. Pabst Brewing Co., 537 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2008). “1997); see also Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 21 (“No damages can be recovered for a breach of contract, which are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin.”
Hinson v. Cameron, 742 P.2d 549 (Okla. 1987). “1986), the Court said: "The general rule of damages for breach of employment contracts is that the aggrieved party is entitled to recover an amount which will compensate him for all the detriment proximately caused by such breach, or which will be likely to result therefrom.”
Florafax Int'l Inc. v. GTE Mkt. Resources, Inc., 933 P.2d 282 (Okla. 1997). “The above rules, at least in part, are essentially reflected in Oklahoma’s statutory law found at 23 O.S.1991, § 21, which provides: For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages .”
Sundance Energy Oklahoma, LLC v. Dan D. Drilling Corp., 836 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2016). “And the jury’s verdict for Sundance on the breach of implied contract claim independently supports the jury’s award of damages, because under Oklahoma law there is no reduction of damages for a breach of contract claim in light of a party’s contributory negligence.”
Sun Ridge Investors, Ltd. v. Parker, 1998 OK 22 (Okla. 1998). “Title 23 O.S.1991 § 21 provides that the contract measure of damages is the amount that will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom.”
Gentry v. Am. Motorist Ins. Co., 867 P.2d 468 (Okla. 1994). “Consequential Damages Insupport of his claim for consequential damages Gentry quotes 23 O.S.1991, § 21: For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this chapter, is the amount which will compensate…”
Smoot v. B & J Restoration Servs., Inc., 279 P.3d 805 (Okla. Civ. App. 2012). “23 O.S.2011 § 21. The jury instructions here do not meet this standard.”
Pointer v. Hill, 536 P.2d 358 (Okla. 1975). “23 O.S.1971, §§ 21, 96. Appellant’s remaining proposition asserts error by the trial court in granting appel-lee’s motion for directed verdict against them.”
Show all 40 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.