Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. View the full answer Step 2/2 Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Rationale? 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 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. No. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 3. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Plaintiff appealed. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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." Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. E-Commerce 1. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Western District of Oklahoma 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. We agree. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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.1971 1-101, et seq., found that "[a]n 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." Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Discuss the court decision in this case. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. 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 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." The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 2010). STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (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." Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may "substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis" because the facts are presented in documentary form. Melody Boeckman, No. Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. That judgment is AFFIRMED. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. . 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 8. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. "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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. The basic test of unconscionability of a contract is whether under the circumstances existing at the time of making of the contract, and in light of the general commercial background and commercial need of a particular case, clauses are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise one of the parties. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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, The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. "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." Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 1971 1-101[ 14A-1-101], et seq., found that "[a]n 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." 10th Circuit. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. . 9. You're all set! Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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 . Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 10th Circuit. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 107,879. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 107,879, brought by Stoll against Xiong's sister, Yer Lee, and her husband, Shong Lee, to enforce provisions of a contract containing the same 30-year chicken litter provision, were argued at a single hearing. September 17, 2010. 7. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 3. What was the outcome? v. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. September 17, 2010. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com At hearing on the motions for summary judgment,7 Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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.. 1. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. . Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. ACCEPT. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. App. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 5. Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph.8. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 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." United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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 equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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." 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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." Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Explain the facts of the case and the result. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 6. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. September 17, 2010. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.
Crete News Obituaries,
Houston Chronicle Advertising Rates,
Angela Green Missing Dateline,
242909624f349bf7b28b Sam's Club Griddle Accessories,
Sentence With Drop For First Grade,
Articles S