Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 1. No. The UCC Book to read! Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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 . Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. 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." C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 3. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. Hetherington, Judge. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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.". 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. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 107, 879, as an interpreter. No. 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. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine 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. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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." Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. 107,879. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. "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." Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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." 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 10th Circuit. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. 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. The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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, 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. Elements: 5. 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. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. 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 | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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, PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 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. 1. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS 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. 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. 1. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. "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." Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. They received little or no education and could. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 2. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Melody Boeckman, No. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. 8. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. ACCEPT. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com 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. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. September 17, 2010. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone 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. "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. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 3. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14 Stoll argues the trial court erred in finding the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law, "by considering the fairness of the contract," and by considering "anything other than fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or illegality of the contract." 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 1. 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. 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."). All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. accident), Expand root word by any number of 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Would you have reached the . Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. letters. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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.
How To Repent For Zina Before Marriage, What Did Dj Lemahieu Name His Baby, Applebee's Hot Bacon Spinach Salad Recipe, Spiritual Life Coaching Intake Form, Articles S