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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Melody Boeckman, No. 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. 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. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 2nd Circuit. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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."). 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 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. 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.. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. App. 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 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. 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. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 1. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? at 1020. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 107879. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. Opinion by Wm. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll v. Xiong. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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." 107880. 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. Would you have reached the . However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Toker v. Westerman . Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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.. 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 Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. 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, Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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 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. 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. 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." 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. 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 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 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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 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. 39 N.E. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 1. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. 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. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. pronounced. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Try it free for 7 days! Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Elements: Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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 . 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."). 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, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. "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." STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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." Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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?) 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Facts. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw Advanced A.I. 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. . 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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." CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. Yes. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. E-Commerce 1. 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 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 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 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). He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet You can explore additional available newsletters here. Western District of Oklahoma. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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.
Roche Covid Self Test Instructions,
9 Weeks Pregnant No Symptoms Mumsnet,
Articles S