View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 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." 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. App. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 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. "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." 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. 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. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 107,880. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Want more details on this case? 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." Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. This purchase price represents $2,000 per acre and $10,000 for the cost of an access road to be constructed to the property by Seller., The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is, adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. v.
Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. at 1020. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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." He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. to the other party.Id. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. letters. 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. 60252. ACCEPT. 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 If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 4 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. Hetherington, Judge. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. That judgment is AFFIRMED. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. COA No. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 134961. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Opinion by WM. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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." We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. pronounced. 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. United States District Courts. Facts. 10th Circuit. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 9. 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. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant,
that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Try it free for 7 days! C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students Yes. 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. 1. 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?) Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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.". right of "armed robbery. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 2. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 7. 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 . Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 5. "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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. We agree. 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." 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. 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. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! . 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. 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. 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." 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." 4. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. They received little or no education and could. 8. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Message D'encouragement Pour Un Militaire,
Articles S