Bermuda Excursions On Your Own, Downtown Kirkwood Events, Articles S

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." 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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." 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 3. at 1020. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain Doccol - -SCI 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 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.. Toker v. Westerman . Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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 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. 107,880. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 107879. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 1. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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."). Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Opinion by WM. September 17, 2010. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 1. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 right or left of "armed robbery. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 107,879, as an interpreter. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 7. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 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. Western District of Oklahoma 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." 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.". He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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 filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. United States District Courts. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. pronounced. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. ACCEPT. Hetherington, Judge. 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. 4. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator 107, 879, as an interpreter. 60252. 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." Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 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? You're all set! Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. That judgment is AFFIRMED. They received little or no education and could. 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. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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 . 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee Supreme Court of Michigan. 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. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. We agree. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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.