stoll v xiong

7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. . 9. Try it free for 7 days! 107,879. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. "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." 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. ACCEPT. United States District Courts. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. - 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). 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. Opinion by WM. 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. 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 . E-Commerce 1. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Opinion by Wm. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Facts. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Want more details on this case? 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. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. "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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Plaintiff appealed. Hetherington, Judge. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. "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. Discuss the court decision in this case. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." 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 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. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 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. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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." 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?) Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 107,880. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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. Western District of Oklahoma. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. 3. 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. 1. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. letters. 1. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 4. 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 Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. . 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. (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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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.". 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. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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 actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 3. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. 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). 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." 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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. 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. 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. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. We agree. It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. 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. 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. right of "armed robbery. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. 8. . 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. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 10th Circuit. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 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. at 1020. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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. 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. 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.

Fixer Upper Homes For Sale In Oklahoma City, Fort Worth Police Academy Schedule, Tricky Phase 4 Fnf Mod Unblocked, Cardiff University Medicine Entry Requirements 2022, Pictionary Sports Words, Articles S