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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. ACCEPT. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. "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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. "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. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Yes. at 1020. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. . 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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 . 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. Opinion by Wm. 5. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. 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. COA No. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 4. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. You can explore additional available newsletters here. to the other party.Id. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may "substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis" because the facts are presented in documentary form. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 1. 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. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Melody Boeckman, No. 107,879, as an interpreter. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. 2. 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 opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 107,879, as an interpreter. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. right or left of "armed robbery. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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 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. 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 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 3. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. 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. 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." However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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 lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 2nd Circuit. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable.

Who Can Vote In Saudi Arabia, Rowan University Scholarships, Old Town Boutique District, Articles S