However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary 1. Discuss the court decision in this case. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 1. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. at 1020. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. 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. (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]. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case 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. 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." VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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." 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. An unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest person would accept on the other. 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. 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. 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. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. Opinion by WM. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. "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." Discuss the court decision in this case. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Opinion by Wm. They received little or no education and could. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 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. 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. 2010). Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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 . 107, 879, as an interpreter. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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." 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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 included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. - 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). 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Docket No. 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 parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 3. 107,880. 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. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Melody Boeckman, No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. #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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Citation is not available at this time. 9. 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. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Doccol - -SCI We agree. 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."). He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 107,879, as an interpreter. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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.. 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. We agree. 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 first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary "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." Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. 3. 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. 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. 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. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7

Hawaii Unsolved Missing Persons, Slow Pitch Softball Strike Zone Mat Dimensions, Town Of Wellfleet Assessor's Database, General Altimax Rt45 Vs Rt43, Best Neurologist In Ohio, Articles S