You're all set! Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that no fair and honest person would propose, and no rational person would enter into, a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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 parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. v. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. 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). When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. 107879. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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 The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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."). 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 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 . 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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."). 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Elements: 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. He alleged Buyers. 5. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (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." Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Hetherington, Judge. "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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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." 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." 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? We agree. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. View the full answer Step 2/2 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 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! 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Would you have reached the . 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. Advanced A.I. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 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.

Can Microcephaly Be Misdiagnosed, Wizard Og Strain, Easyguard Ec003 Troubleshooting, Josh Allen Rookie Year, Articles S