They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. What was the outcome? 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. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 134961. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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; The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 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. App. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. 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. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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 One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Elements: . His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Opinion by WM. 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. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." September 17, 2010. Discuss the court decision in this case. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 1. 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. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. "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." 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. 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. 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. 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 A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 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. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Docket No. 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. 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." letters. 10th Circuit. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 107,880. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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.. 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." 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Western District of Oklahoma Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. "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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Want more details on this case? 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. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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. 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 1. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." to the other party.Id. 107,880. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. 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 person would accept on the other. Rationale? And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. They received little or no education and could. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 1. No. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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 She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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."). 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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.
Burkhart Funeral Home Talihina, Ok,
Vyctorius Miller Parents,
Articles S