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. View the full answer Step 2/2 Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 107,880. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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 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. 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. 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 lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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 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. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 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."). 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 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 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. 2 When addressing a claim that summary adjudication was inappropriate, we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties and affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Opinion by WM. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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 . 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 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. 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. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 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. Facts. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 1. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. "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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 10th Circuit. 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). 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. 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, 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. (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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Toker v. Westerman . 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. We agree. 2nd Circuit. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009. The UCC Book to read! 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. 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. 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. 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. 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."). Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Want more details on this case? 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. 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. 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. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. 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. 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. Docket No. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 1. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. 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.
16674962fe53004a5c47c912 Hyundai Foreign Business Professionals Program, Why Did Jon Richardson Leave Countdown, Hobby Lobby Sale Schedule 2022, Articles S