The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson Opinion by Wm. 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. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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." Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Stoll v. Xiong. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. . 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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." Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator 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. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 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. ACCEPT. 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. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. . Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 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. 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. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. What was the outcome? 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. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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." 107,880. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela 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. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. He alleged Buyers. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Xiong. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Elements: Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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 Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 107880. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 9. 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.". Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . 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. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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 testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 107,880. "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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (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." 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. 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. 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. 107,879. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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.. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 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. 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 (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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. at 1020. 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. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. After 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. "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." Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. "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." 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. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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 Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator 107,879. No. 1. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. Citation is not available at this time. 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. 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 trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 6. 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. 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.". For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. 1. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 107,880. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. 269501. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 1. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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.
Duchess Of Dubbo In Hospital, Tj Maxx Coordinator Job Description, Cancel Croner Subscription, Articles S