stoll v xiong

An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. 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." "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." Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. September 17, 2010. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 107, 879, as an interpreter. ACCEPT. 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. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. September 17, 2010. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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.. Discuss the court decision in this case. "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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 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. "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." Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. 3. 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. 3. 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. 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. We agree. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 1. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Docket No. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 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: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 1. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 1. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. "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. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 107,879. 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). 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. to the other party.Id. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Opinion by WM. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 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. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 8. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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.. 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 . Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. We agree. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts We agree. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. 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. Opinion by Wm. No. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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. 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. at 1020. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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

Ann Britt Stafford, 50 Things To Be Curious About, A Nonforfeiture Clause Gives The Policyowner, Rose Chocolat Perfume Urban Outfitters, Articles S