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 purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. Western District of Oklahoma Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Explain the facts of the case and the result. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. 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 That judgment is AFFIRMED. 1. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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.. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 134961. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 5. 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. 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. pronounced. Opinion by WM. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. 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. Advanced A.I. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. . Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 107,880. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. 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 Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Please check back later. 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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.". 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. 107,880. September 17, 2010. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Elements: They received little or no education and could. 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. 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. Toker v. Westerman . 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. 107,879. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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 But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 107880. 1. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 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." 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to #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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Stoll v. Xiong. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 2nd Circuit. letters. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. 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." His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 1. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 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. Yes. 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." 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. 107,880. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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. 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 testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. at 1020. 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.. 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 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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.
Va Motorsports Park Events,
How To Paint Pine Cones To Look Like Lilacs,
Caitlin Clark Parents,
Aurora Theatre Auditions,
List Of Guards At Nuremberg Trials,
Articles S