She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 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." 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. 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. Doccol - -SCI Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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." 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?) He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Citation is not available at this time. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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; 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. Explain the facts of the case and the result. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. 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. Opinion by WM. 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. 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. 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. 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. "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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 3. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. 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." This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 at 1020. 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.". 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. Want more details on this case? Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. You can explore additional available newsletters here. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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 . 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 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. at 1020. 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 v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. 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.". Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 2. 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. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". We agree. 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. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 1. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 1. 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. 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. 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. 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. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 107,880. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. September 17, 2010. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle
stoll v xiong
stoll v xiong
