El Super Salinas Ca Weekly Ad, Gemini Woman Physical Appearance, Mike Weirsky Gives Cashier, North Wirral Coastal Park The Gunsite, Articles S

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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 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. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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 the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. "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." FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 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 He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." 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. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. 60252. 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." 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 1. 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 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 1. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. September 17, 2010. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis Opinion by Wm. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 1. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. ACCEPT. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). E-Commerce 1. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. (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. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. right of "armed robbery. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 10th Circuit. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 39 N.E. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 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. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. 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 he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 2010). https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 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. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 10th Circuit. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. 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. 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. Want more details on this case? v. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 You're all set! whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 3. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. (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]. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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." 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 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 parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 107,879. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. We agree. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. at 1020. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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."). The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Docket No. 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. 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. 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. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 2. Advanced A.I. You can explore additional available newsletters here. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. . 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." This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 134961. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Rationale? 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated.