stoll v xiong

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. . "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. 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. 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. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Stoll v. Xiong. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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.. 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 . Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? We agree. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. App. 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. 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. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. #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. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. 1. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. What was the outcome? 1. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Melody Boeckman, No. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 2. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. at 1020. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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; When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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.". Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Western District of Oklahoma Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. right or left of "armed robbery. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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." 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. 10th Circuit. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. September 17, 2010. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 8. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 3. Want more details on this case? 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.1971 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." 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery . Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Facts. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. right of "armed robbery. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 5. 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. Citation is not available at this time. 39 N.E. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. 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. 107,880. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 1. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. No. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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! 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. 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. v. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Stoll v. Xiong. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 107, 879, as an interpreter. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. 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." 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 buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. 107879. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. 107,880. 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.

stoll v xiong 2023