Xto Owner Relations Phone Number, Articles S

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 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 107879, 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. 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. 134961. Try it free for 7 days! Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 107,880. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 107,880. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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 included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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." He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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 testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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."). Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. 1. 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. The UCC Book to read! The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 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. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 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. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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 court affirmed the district courts judgment. 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. 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 testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 4. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Citation is not available at this time. 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. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. 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 testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. E-Commerce 1. Discuss the court decision in this case. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Stoll v. Xiong. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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 testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 1. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). They received little or no education and could. Western District of Oklahoma. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. 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. (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]. 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. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. accident), Expand root word by any number of Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 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. COA No. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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 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. Would you have reached the . Opinion by WM. "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. 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 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. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 2. 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. United States District Courts. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. View the full answer Step 2/2 Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 269501. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Plaintiff appealed. 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. ACCEPT. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 1. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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.. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). 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.". Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! 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. 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.