stoll v xiong

The UCC Book to read! Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. 107,880. 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. letters. 1. 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. No. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. . Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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; Opinion by WM. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. He alleged Buyers. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. 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. 269501. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. Melody Boeckman, No. 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 v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 1. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 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. pronounced. 2010). 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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."). The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. Western District of Oklahoma CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 107,880. 1. 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. 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary 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." Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 1. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. "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." Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet You're all set! They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. "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. 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." Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. We agree. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph.8. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 1. September 17, 2010. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 9. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. "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. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 60252. 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. 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. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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." COA No. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. What was the outcome? 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." 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. 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. 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. 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, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 8. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 107,879, as an interpreter. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 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. 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. 134961. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. . 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." Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis 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. 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. 6. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 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. 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. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons 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 the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Doccol - -SCI Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. to the other party.Id. 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 . Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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. 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 Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement.

What Is The Yankees Starting Lineup Today, What Is The Partial Pressure Of C? Atm C, Nys Employee Salaries By Name, Articles S