Please check back later. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 1. 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. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Doccol - -SCI Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. September 17, 2010. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 1. "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." Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 107,880. 2nd Circuit. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 107,879. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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." STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. "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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 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." 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. letters. 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. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Discuss the court decision in this case. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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 | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Plaintiff appealed. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. right of "armed robbery. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee Western District of Oklahoma. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. 134961. 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." 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. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 8. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. You're all set! 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. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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. at 1020. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Western District of Oklahoma The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 10th Circuit. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets 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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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. pronounced. 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. App. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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."). Docket No. 107,880. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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 Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Toker v. Westerman . 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet 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. 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. He alleged Buyers. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. 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. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. v. 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. 39 N.E. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. September 17, 2010. 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." Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet 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. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw Advanced A.I. Melody Boeckman, No. 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Try it free for 7 days! at 1020. 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. to the other party.Id. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 1. "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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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 man would accept on the other. 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. 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. 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. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 1. 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. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle 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." whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." "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 v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Elements: Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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., The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is, adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. (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]. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Would you have reached the . You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case 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. 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 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. . 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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 man would accept on the other.