Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com 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. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE 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. COA No. letters. 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 Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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. pronounced. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . because the facts are presented in documentary form. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case 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. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 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. 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." C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 1. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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.". 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 6. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Toker v. Westerman . 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." 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. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. 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. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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."). 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. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 107,880. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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). 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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." 1980), accord, 12A O.S. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Supreme Court of Michigan. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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." "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. 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. 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. 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. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. Elements: 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 filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 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 is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 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 planned to sell or trade the litter. 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. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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." Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. You're all set! Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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.". BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 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. 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 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. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Docket No. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." "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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Try it free for 7 days! CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. 107880. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. The UCC Book to read! 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." 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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.
High School Football Onside Kick Rules, Articles S