stoll v xiong

We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. 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." Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. "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. . 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." 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Xiong. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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 Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. 1. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Plaintiff appealed. "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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Opinion by Wm. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. "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." 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Western District of Oklahoma 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. "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." 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. . 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. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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." Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 134961. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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.". 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. 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." 2nd Circuit. 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. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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." 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Rationale? 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. 1. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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." to the other party.Id. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . September 17, 2010. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. "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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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. 107,880. 2010). 1. 3. 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."). Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. 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 He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 39 N.E. 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 v. 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. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. letters. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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."