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 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 three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. He alleged Buyers. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Western District of Oklahoma The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. September 17, 2010. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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." 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. September 17, 2010. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. at 1020. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement 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. 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 Try it free for 7 days! Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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. 1. Western District of Oklahoma. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. 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." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. 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. 3. 4. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 4 Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. We agree. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. They received little or no education and could. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 107,880. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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." 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 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. 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. Opinion by WM. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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.. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. pronounced. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Melody Boeckman, No. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 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. 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. 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. to the other party.Id. The UCC Book to read! 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. 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 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. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, to the other party.Id. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008.
Ogden Mustangs Youth Hockey,
Jodie Pick Up Lines,
Trader Joe's Leave Of Absence,
Buffalo Horn Grips,
Nicotine Poisoning In Babies,
Articles S
stoll v xiong