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. . Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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 Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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. 4. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 2. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 6. letters. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. "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." Want more details on this case? Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 3. Discuss the court decision in this case. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 3. September 17, 2010. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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.. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. Opinion by Wm. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! Elements: CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 269501. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. "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." After 2008, rising oil prices drove up the cost of commercial fertilizer, but before then he had not sold litter for more than $12 per ton. COA No. 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Hetherington, Judge. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. 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. 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. 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. It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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 Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet 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. 1. Western District of Oklahoma "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. "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. 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." Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Rationale? near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. September 17, 2010. 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. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 1. 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." Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Citation is not available at this time. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Western District of Oklahoma. 107,879. Opinion by WM. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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. at 1020. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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." 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. 10th Circuit. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. 1. Supreme Court of Michigan. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. App. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. We agree. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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, No. It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Docket No. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. 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. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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 v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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."). The court affirmed the district courts judgment. pronounced. Would you have reached the . 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.". Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. 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. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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." Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Please check back later. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw . 1. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy 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. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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 Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. September 17, 2010. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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. 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. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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." 107880. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 2nd Circuit. 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. ACCEPT. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. "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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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.
Power Bi If Statement With Multiple Conditions, What Does Cameron Call His Style Of Rhythm?, Articles S