Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-327
Oklahoma Code Comment
(1) (a) This is consistent with previous Oklahoma decisions. Western Rope & Mfg. Co. v. Overland Petroleum Co., 98 Okl. 5, 223 P. 659 (1924); Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Lewis, 93 Okl. 280, 220 P. 639, 35 A.L.R. 1463 (1923).
(b) There are no previous Oklahoma decisions. It does not specifically say that use of the goods which is inconsistent with the purpose of trial is an acceptance, but that is the inference of the words "use of the goods consistent with the purpose of trial is not acceptance."
(c) There are no previous Oklahoma decisions.
(2) (a) There are no previous Oklahoma decisions. This rule is consistent with commercial practices.
(b) Previous Oklahoma law is in accord. Johnson v. Curlee Clothing Co., 112 Okl. 220, 240 P. 632 (1925); Hales v. Henry Black, Ltd., Okl., 264 P.2d 355 (1954).