Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. 107,879. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. View the full answer Step 2/2 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Try it free for 7 days! Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. . 5. 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. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 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 in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 1. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. He 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. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 1. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. to the other party.Id. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in In posuere eget ante id facilisis. COA 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.". Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator 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. 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 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 2 When addressing a claim that summary adjudication was inappropriate, we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties and affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. App. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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. 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. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 2. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 107,880. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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! "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." 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. letters. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 107, 879, as an interpreter. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Stoll v. Xiong. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. We agree. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. . 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 2010). 10th Circuit. "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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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." What was the outcome? 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a preliminary version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . The UCC Book to read! 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. 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Hetherington, Judge. 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 first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. Citation is not available at this time. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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. 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." That judgment is AFFIRMED. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. at 1020. 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." 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. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 1. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. 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 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." Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator (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]. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement 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. Facts. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. at 1020. 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."
Kevin Durant Wingspan In Inches,
1948 Chevy Fleetmaster Convertible For Sale,
Eli Cohen Children,
Marlboro Police Blotter,
Articles S
