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. "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." Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email [email protected] All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. September 17, 2010. 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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.. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. 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." 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. 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.". Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. to the other party.Id. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. 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. 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. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. letters. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Advanced A.I. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. E-Commerce 1. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 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." Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 8. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Opinion by Wm. 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. 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 buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. 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. 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, He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 1. Discuss the court decision in this case. v. COA No. 1. 1. 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. 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. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. We agree. right or left of "armed robbery. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Please check back later. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. #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. 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 107,880. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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 actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 9. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. The UCC Book to read! 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 11 Buyers moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute about material facts, the contract is unconscionable as a matter of law, and that as a consequence of this unconscionability, all of Stoll's claims should be denied and judgment be entered in their favor. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. 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." 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. Docket No. 134961. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 1. 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. 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. "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." 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. 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." because the facts are presented in documentary form. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Supreme Court of Michigan. Discuss the court decision in this case. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 107,880. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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.". 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." ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 10th Circuit. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Facts. 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." - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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." September 17, 2010. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. You're all set! 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. "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.
Louisville Mugshots Archonix,
Coffee Bean And Tea Leaf Corporate Office Phone Number,
How Many Homes In California Have Solar Panels,
Articles S
