Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 107,879. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. September 17, 2010. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 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. 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. 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." Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 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. 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." 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 10th Circuit. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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."). 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 1. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. 10th Circuit. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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 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. 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 . Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Western District of Oklahoma Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. "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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. COA No. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. Advanced A.I. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. at 1020. 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. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 4 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. 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. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. September 17, 2010. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 3. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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 Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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." 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase 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," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. "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." 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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." Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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." 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 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. 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. 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." Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 39 N.E. Citation is not available at this time. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 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. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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 the revised versions of legislation with amendments. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. 107,880. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Stoll v. Xiong. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. App. 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.. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. #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. (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic].
How To Increase Credit Rating In Bsg Game, Can You Get Two Tickets For Expired Registration, Top Grossing Chipotle Locations, Articles S