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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. Opinion by WM. 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. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 5. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 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. No. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. . 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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 person would accept on the other. 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. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. COA No. . Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Citation is not available at this time. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 107879. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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. 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 actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. September 17, 2010. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. . Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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 at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 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. 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." 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 1971 1-101[ 14A-1-101], et seq., found that "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Stoll v. Xiong. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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." 269501. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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.. 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. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 107,879. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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 parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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 . Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 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. 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . v. 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. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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."). No. E-Commerce 1. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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 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. right of "armed robbery. 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
Which Country Is Known As The Land Of Tulips,
Permitted Development On Agricultural Land Less Than 5 Hectares,
Cost Of Building A House In St Lucia,
Articles S
