Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 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. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 1. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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.. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Hetherington, Judge. 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. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. No. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. . He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. (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]. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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." 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. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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. (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 did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. E-Commerce 1. September 17, 2010. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Opinion by WM. 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." Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. 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." 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. 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." 9. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. right or left of "armed robbery. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. 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 . At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. 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. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. . We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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. 6. She did not then understand "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 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. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 4. at 1020. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 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. 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. We agree. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. #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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 1. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. Western District of Oklahoma 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 107,880. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 2. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 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. Opinion by Wm. 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. 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. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. We agree. Opinion by WM. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. "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." Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 107,880. 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 question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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 parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Please check back later. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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. He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would have litter for sale, now it's not available. He also testified he had independent knowledge, due to having put shavings into ten houses eight weeks prior to his deposition on April 9, 2009, that a chicken house the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. 7. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. 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. 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. 1. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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." 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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.
North Coastal Live Well Center Covid Testing, Ulala Hunter Skill Build, Canned Alcoholic Drinks Without Carbonation, Articles S