Crouch v. Thompson

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White finding Oklahoma law governs the oral contract(lal, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BOB CROUCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JIM THOMPSON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-CIV-00420-RAW

ORDER
Now on this 9th day of July, 2015, this matter comes on for decision on the
issue of what law applies to the oral partnership agreement. Under Oklahoma law,
the law of the place of performance of a contract controls issues related to the
performance of the contract. Clark v. First National Bank of Marseilles, Ill., 157 P.
96 (Okla. 1916).

Title 15 O.S. § 162 states: “A contract is to be interpreted

according to the law and usage of the place where it is to be performed, or, if it does
not indicate a place of performance, according to the law and usage of the place
where it is made.”
The parties stipulated that the contract was an oral contract which was made
in New Mexico. According to the testimony in this case, the parties were to sell cattle
purchased in New Mexico and split the profits after reselling the cattle to third
parties. The evidence shows that the cattle were to be taken to Oklahoma and resold

from there. Indeed, Thompson himself purchased a majority of the cattle and those
were sent to and remained in Oklahoma. Thompson paid FNF from Oklahoma.
Crouch met personally with Thompson in Oklahoma seeking payment for his
services. The substance of this controversy, whether any additional payments were
due Crouch, involves action (or inaction) by the parties in Oklahoma. The court finds
that the intent of the parties was that the contract was to be performed in Oklahoma.
Therefore, this court finds Oklahoma law governs the oral contract in this case.
Dated this 9th day of July, 2015.

______________________________________
HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

2