Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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 buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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 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 parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 107,879. 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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." Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. 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." 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.". 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Supreme Court of Michigan. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Stoll v. Xiong. September 17, 2010. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis 60252. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. at 1020. 39 N.E. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 1971 1-101[ 14A-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." armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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 opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 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. 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. "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. 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. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 1. 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 The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 107,880. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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 person would accept on the other. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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." 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. September 17, 2010. 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." 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. - 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). Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. to the other party.Id. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 269501. 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. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. 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. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 5. 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. 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. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. accident), Expand root word by any number of Docket No. The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary What was the outcome? Yes. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Legalines On Contracts 6th Keyed To Knapp - SAFS & EFFS Citation is not available at this time. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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 valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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. 2. 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. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. App. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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?) 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext Western District of Oklahoma. 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable.
Collecting Money For Family Of Coworker Who Passed Away Email,
Zohd Kopilot Lite Users Manual,
How Big Of Waves Can An Aircraft Carrier Handle,
Stephanie Smith Daughter Of David James Elliott,
Cprp Exam Passing Score,
Articles S