stoll v xiong

Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Please check back later. 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." 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. 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. 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. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 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 VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 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.. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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." 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 10th Circuit. 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. 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.". He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 107,879. Discuss the court decision in this case. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 269501. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 9. Stoll v. Xiong. 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 . because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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. 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? App. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to . letters. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 1. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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." September 17, 2010. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 2010). However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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." We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. "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." 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. 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. 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 the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. Docket No. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 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. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. v. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. They received little or no education and could.

Charlotte Tilbury Magic Serum Dupe, Horario Puente Pharr 2021, Articles S