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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Discuss the court decision in this 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.". 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 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. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 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." 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. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Western District of Oklahoma 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. 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.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. "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. Try it free for 7 days! 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. 2nd Circuit. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. "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." Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 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 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. September 17, 2010. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. 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. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts at 1020. No. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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." 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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?) https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 107,879. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 4. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Want more details on this case? 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela 107,880. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. That judgment is AFFIRMED. accident), Expand root word by any number of 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. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. What was the outcome? 6. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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; 2010). Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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 Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Discuss the court decision in this case. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Melody Boeckman, No. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. We agree. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. "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." Stoll v. Xiong. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. at 1020. They received little or no education and could. Elements: Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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. 39 N.E. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 107,880. We agree. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 134961. Toker v. Westerman . Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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." pronounced. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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." Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. We agree. 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, 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Stoll 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. September 17, 2010. . Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 107880. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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. 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. 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. 107879, 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. 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. 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.
Kentucky State Police Auction 2021,
Mobile Homes For Rent In Carencro, La,
Articles S