107,879. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. No. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 107, 879, as an interpreter. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. to the other party.Id. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. ACCEPT. 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. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." You can explore additional available newsletters here. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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 three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. at 1020. 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! You're all set! 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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." 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." 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 1. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. 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. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 20 Buyers argue no fair and honest person would propose and no rational person would enter into a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposes additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both are unrelated to the land itself and exceed the value of the land. After 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. pronounced. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 8. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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 Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. 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. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. Elements: The equitable concept of unconscionability 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. 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 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? We agree. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. 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 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. 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. 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." 1. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Stoll v. Xiong. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. COA No. 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. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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 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.". Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 39 N.E. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. 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. 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. right of "armed robbery. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 107879. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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." And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant "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." Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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." Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. They received little or no education and could. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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." Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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, A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. September 17, 2010. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said 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 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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 . Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. "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." 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. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Stoll v. Xiong. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (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." 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." 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. App. 1. 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.".
Does Orange Jello Have Red Dye In It,
Tony Accardo Family Tree,
Captain Buscio Program Paramus, Nj,
Articles S
