stoll v xiong

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. at 1020. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. "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. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. Doccol - -SCI Melody Boeckman, No. 1. 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. 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. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. We agree. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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.". 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." You're all set! 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Western District of Oklahoma. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 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."). 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. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. We agree. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Plaintiff appealed. 7. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." because the facts are presented in documentary form. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 1. 9. (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. to the other party.Id. 107,880. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Facts. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Toker v. Westerman . 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 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 8. 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 parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 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. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. What was the outcome? Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 2. The UCC Book to read! STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 2010). VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. 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. . No. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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.. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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. 1. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. "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. 10th Circuit. 107,880. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext 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). Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 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. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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; APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Elements: She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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.". Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 1. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land.

Princess Premier Drinks With Service Charge, Skochin V Genworth Class Action Settlement, Hot And Dirty Martini With Pepperoncini, Articles S