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; United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Melody Boeckman, No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 107,879. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Western District of Oklahoma. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 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). 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1. 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. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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.". Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. 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. 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. Would you have reached the . Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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." Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 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 equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. The UCC Book to read! . 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 7. 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, 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. Elements: Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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 . Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the 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. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. He alleged Buyers. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. We agree. 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. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. 2. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 10th Circuit. 107880. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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." 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. 107,880. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Stoll v. Xiong. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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.. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Try it free for 7 days! 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. . Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Rationale? 2nd Circuit. That judgment is AFFIRMED. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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 The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. 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 Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Opinion by Wm. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 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 . 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 had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. September 17, 2010. 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." Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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." Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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 testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. You're all set! 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 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." 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. 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. 2010). We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." accident), Expand root word by any number of 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. No. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds.
Facts About Sophocles,
Cross Creek Ranch West,
Is Bobby Mcferrin Still Alive 2020,
Worcester Royal Hospital Park And Ride,
Articles S
