"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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 39 N.E. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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.
Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www 1.
Doccol - -SCI The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement 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. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Melody Boeckman, No. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 2nd Circuit. 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." 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.
Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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." Want more details on this case? Would you have reached the . 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. 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. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297.
BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 107,880.
Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Explain the facts of the case and the result. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Opinion by WM. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 107,879. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. No. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008.
Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. 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." 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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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.
BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. right or left of "armed robbery. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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 chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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 . 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Yes. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 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. "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. ACCEPT. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. No. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. right of "armed robbery. 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. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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.". 107,880. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 107, 879, as an interpreter. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 1.
People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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." They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 60252. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. 1. 10th Circuit.
STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions 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.
Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary Try it free for 7 days! Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Western District of Oklahoma 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.