He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator Western District of Oklahoma. 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 2nd Circuit. What was the outcome? Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com Hetherington, Judge. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. right or left of "armed robbery. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet 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. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 107,880. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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." Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 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. 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. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 107,880. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 269501. 1. 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. 3. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Docket No. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 4. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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 person would accept on the other. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. United States District Courts. 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 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 8. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Discuss the court decision in this case. Facts. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. We agree. accident), Expand root word by any number of We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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." 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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 . 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. ACCEPT. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. "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." Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Advanced A.I. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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. 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. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. to the other party.Id. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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.1971 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." 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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." We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. No. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. The buyers sold the litter 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. - 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). Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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." 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. 10th Circuit. Explain the facts of the case and the result. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS 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. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. letters. Opinion by WM. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. Doccol - -SCI 1980), accord, 12A O.S. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet (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]. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. That judgment is AFFIRMED. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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.
Craigslist Thornville Ohio,
Baylor College Of Medicine Emeriti Plan,
The Sagamore Lake George Wedding Cost,
Articles S
