stoll v xiong stoll v xiong

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. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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. 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. 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. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Citation is not available at this time. 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. 9. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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 v. Chong Lor Xiong. 134961. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 1. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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 three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Toker v. Westerman . 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. 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 couple buys real estate for 130,000. He alleged Buyers. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 107,879, as an interpreter. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds 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. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 1. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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.. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. to the other party.Id. 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. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of COA No. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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.". 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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 . 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. September 17, 2010. 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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. What was the outcome? 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." Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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." 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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. "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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Rationale? 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. 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. 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Stoll v. Xiong. 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." 1. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Discuss the court decision in this case. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. 107,879. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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 lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. Would you have reached the . because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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. 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. Western District of Oklahoma 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. (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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked 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. 39 N.E. 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. 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. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. . However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. . 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Please check back later. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 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. 60252. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Docket No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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." Opinion by Wm. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. 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. 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." 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. "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." Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; The UCC Book to read! 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. 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. 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." Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900.