stoll v xiong

The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. at 1020. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. 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." Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 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. Doccol - -SCI 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Western District of Oklahoma. 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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. 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. 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."). Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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.. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 10th Circuit. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. 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 . Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 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." 1. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. COA No. 10th Circuit. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 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. Western District of Oklahoma 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. What was the outcome? Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com 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. Opinion by WM. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 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 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. That judgment is AFFIRMED. at 1020. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Yes. 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. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students 3. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. 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. No. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 1. 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. Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 3. Melody Boeckman, No. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Applying these figures, the annual value of the litter from de-caking alone ( i.e., which does not include additional volumes of litter from a complete clean out) appears to range from roughly $7,200 to $15,000. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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. pronounced. 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. And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Hetherington, Judge. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 107,880. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. 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. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 4. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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." 269501. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. 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 . 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 8. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 1. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. "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. 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. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 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. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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.. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. . Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. to the other party.Id. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 2nd Circuit. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. 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. Plaintiff appealed. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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." The UCC Book to read! STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. But in any country, no one will buy you a free lunch or provide you a - or give you a free cigarette pack of three dollars. 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. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. "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." However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words.