stoll v xiong stoll v xiong

Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. "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. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). 4. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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." 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. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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."). 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." "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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 107,880. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. App. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 9. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Western District of Oklahoma Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 10th Circuit. 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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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 Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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." 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. 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. at 1020. 107,880. accident), Expand root word by any number of DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. 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. Toker v. Westerman . The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in v. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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." All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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."). 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. The UCC Book to read! Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 6. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. at 1020. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 2010). He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. . Advanced A.I. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. 1. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Supreme Court of Michigan. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Opinion by WM. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Yes. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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 We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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.. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Opinion by Wm. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 107,879. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email [email protected] 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. 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." The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. "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." Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 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. No. 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. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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." Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery "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." 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. 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. 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 Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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.