107, 879, as an interpreter. 107,879. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. - 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). The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 5. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. "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. 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. 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. 107,880. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 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. 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 claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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. 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 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. 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. 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. 7. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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.". 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 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 107,879, as an interpreter. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. to the other party.Id. 107879. 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 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. . 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. 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." CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 1. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. 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. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 4. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 1971 1-101[ 14A-1-101], et seq., found that "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. 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. 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. 107,879. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. No. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. at 1020. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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 Plaintiff appealed. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. #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. letters. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. because the facts are presented in documentary form. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Try it free for 7 days! 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Western District of Oklahoma 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 11 Buyers moved for summary judgment, arguing there is no dispute about material facts, the contract is unconscionable as a matter of law, and that as a consequence of this unconscionability, all of Stoll's claims should be denied and judgment be entered in their favor. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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. 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." pronounced. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Opinion by WM. 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 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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.. 8. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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 Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. View the full answer Step 2/2 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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 trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 9. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. v. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . The UCC Book to read! 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. 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." 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. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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." 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., 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.. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. 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 . It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. to the other party.Id.
About Myself Using The Five Areas Of Personality Development, Adetoun Onajobi Husband, Dream About Being In Someone Else's Body, Lightning Jutsu List, Catherine Eugenia Owens, Articles S