Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. because the facts are presented in documentary form. Discuss the court decision in this case. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 1. 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. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 107,880. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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." 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. 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." 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. "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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 8. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. . However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that no fair and honest person would propose, and no rational person would enter into, a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. 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. Opinion by WM. 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.". 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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 . No. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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." 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,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. Western District of Oklahoma 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Western District of Oklahoma. 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 Yes. 7. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Stoll v. Xiong. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. at 1020. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. Rationale? Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Opinion by Wm. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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." 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. 1. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. . 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. 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. He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. CHONG LOR XIONG. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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 Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. Plaintiff appealed. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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.". The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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 equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 107,879. 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. 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. 107,880. 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, The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 107879, 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. 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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 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 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." 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. 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. 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. 1. 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. 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. App. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 2nd Circuit. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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. Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. "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 included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 1. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 107880. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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."
Dupage County Sheriff Civil Process, Simone De Alba, Houses For Rent Under $800 In Las Vegas, Sohal Caste Belongs To Which Caste, Cathleen Cagney Cause Of Death, Articles S