Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. 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. 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." The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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 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 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Discuss the court decision in this case. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 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. 107,879. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) 107879. 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 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. 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." Rationale? 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. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. 10th Circuit. 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. letters. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. at 1020. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 107,880. 1. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Please check back later. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 107879, brought by Stoll against Xiong's sister, Yer Lee, and her husband, Shong Lee, to enforce provisions of a contract containing the same 30-year chicken litter provision, were argued at a single hearing. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! COA No. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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." Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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." 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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.". 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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. 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. 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. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. That judgment is AFFIRMED. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. to the other party.Id. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. 3. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. 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." 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Would you have reached the . Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. We agree. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. They received little or no education and could. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. This purchase price represents $2,000 per acre and $10,000 for the cost of an access road to be constructed to the property by Seller., The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is, adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. #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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 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." 3. 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. 1. 7. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Citation is not available at this time. We agree. 2010). However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. to the other party.Id. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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.
Ninewells Hospital Ward Phone Numbers, Arlo Hotel Manager Fired, Joel Osteen Church Tickets, Articles S