Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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."). 8. 269501. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. pronounced. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said 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. 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. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. . Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 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. 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 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. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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 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. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. COA No. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. "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. App. 2. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 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. 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 . 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Would you have reached the . He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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! 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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. v. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. He alleged Buyers. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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." 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. Citation is not available at this time. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine ACCEPT. . The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. 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 the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. We agree. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said 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. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 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. 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. 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." 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 because the facts are presented in documentary form. 10th Circuit. Explain the facts of the case and the result. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 1. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 107,880. United States District Courts. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 1. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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 v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 1. Supreme Court of Michigan. "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." 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.". Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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." A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. You're all set! The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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. 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. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 107,879, as an interpreter. The UCC Book to read! Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Doccol - -SCI He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. 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." 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."). Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. Yes. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. 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.
Nordstrom Benefits Center Contact, Articles S