1. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. They received little or no education and could. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Supreme Court of Michigan. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month adult school program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. . 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. accident), Expand root word by any number of 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 9. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Opinion by WM. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, An unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other. Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Stoll v. Xiong. Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Western District of Oklahoma An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. But in any country, no one will buy you a free lunch or provide you a-or give you a free cigarette pack of three dollars. Docket No. An unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest person would accept on the other. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month "adult school" program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. 107879. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Yes. 1. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 3. September 17, 2010. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. We affirm the trial court's findings the contract paragraph supporting Stoll's claim is unconscionable and Buyers were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 2 When addressing a claim that summary adjudication was inappropriate, we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties and affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 6. He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would "have litter for sale, now it's not available." Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. He alleged Buyers. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would "have litter for sale, now it's not available." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 269501. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator 1. Facts. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . letters. 20 Buyers argue no fair and honest person would propose and no rational person would enter into a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposes additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both are unrelated to the land itself and exceed the value of the land. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 20 Buyers argue no fair and honest person would propose and no rational person would enter into a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposes additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both are unrelated to the land itself and exceed the value of the land. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that no fair and honest person would propose, and no rational person would enter into, a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable, granted Buyers' motion for summary judgment, denied Stoll's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Buyers on Stoll's petition. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Toker v. Westerman . The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. 11 Buyers moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute about material facts, the contract is unconscionable as a matter of law, and that as a consequence of this unconscionability, all of Stoll's claims should be denied and judgment be entered in their favor. Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 1. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. The trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. 107,879. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000, or roughly an additional $3,325.12 more per acre just from de-caked chicken litter sales than the $2,000 per acre purchase price stated on the first page of the contract. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet "Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. at 1020. 1. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Applying these figures, the annual value of the litter from de-caking alone ( i.e., which does not include additional volumes of litter from a complete clean out) appears to range from roughly $7,200 to $15,000. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. This purchase price represents $2,000 per acre and $10,000 for the cost of an access road to be constructed to the property by Seller." Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. right or left of "armed robbery. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Doccol - -SCI 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. App. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately 5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee." Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. 39 N.E. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 134961. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Hetherington, Judge. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor. He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would have litter for sale, now it's not available. He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. "Ordinarily the mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground, in itself, to justify a court in canceling a deed, yet where the inadequacy of the consideration was so gross as to shock the conscience, and the grantor was feeble-minded and unable to understand the nature of his contract, a strong presumption of fraud arises, and unless it is successfully rebutted, a court of equity will set aside the deed so obtained." Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. View the full answer Step 2/2 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a preliminary version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable.
Bendigo Council Fence Regulations,
Saint Joachim Catholic Church Mass Times,
Highest Paid College Baseball Coaches 2021,
Articles S