Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. 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. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 8. 107,880. 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. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. "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." Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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 opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 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. 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." 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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." 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. . 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 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." Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. E-Commerce 1. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 2nd Circuit. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 10th Circuit. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. We agree. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Facts. Western District of Oklahoma An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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 purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) 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. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. 3. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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 testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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 . STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 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. 1. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW pronounced. Docket No. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Stoll v. Xiong | Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma | 09-17-2010 | www Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. (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]. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Hetherington, Judge. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 1. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. They received little or no education and could. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. . Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. to the other party.Id. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. United States District Courts. 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. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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.
Kasih Yesus Indah Oh Indah Lirik Chord,
How Do You Pronounce Baal In The Bible?,
Articles S