The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience.
STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Stoll v. Xiong. No. 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 . 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.
33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,
The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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," i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 107,880. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War.
PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. September 17, 2010. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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." "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." Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. 4.
Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. We agree. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to
Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. COA No. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. The UCC Book to read! 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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." He alleged Buyers. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three 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. 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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 " 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 For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. 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." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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.
People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case 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. Elements: 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. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Try it free for 7 days!
Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife.
Happy Weekend Emoji,
Months With 5 Sundays In 2023,
Zenni Optical Out Of Business,
Articles S