Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. September 17, 2010. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. 4. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. right or left of "armed robbery. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. You're all set! She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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." Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 1. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 1. COA No. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 1. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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 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.". 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. 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. 107,879. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 107, 879, as an interpreter. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 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! INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. 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; 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. 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.. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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 claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 107,880. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Western District of Oklahoma Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. 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. September 17, 2010. 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. 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. 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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." Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Citation is not available at this time. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? The UCC Book to read! She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Opinion by Wm. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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 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. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 8. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 2nd Circuit. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. Docket No. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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." No. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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 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. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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." 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. 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. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Advanced A.I. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 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. Yes. 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. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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 . Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 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.". 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.
daily mail word wheel solutions
Helping you find Love