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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Yes. 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. 3. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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 Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 1. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 107880. Western District of Oklahoma Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy They received little or no education and could. 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. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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." Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. 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. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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." 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator 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 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. Doccol - -SCI 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." 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.". 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. 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. 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. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. 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. 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. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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." Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. What was the outcome? Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. Docket No. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 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. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. right or left of "armed robbery. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. 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. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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.. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. 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." We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. "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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant to the other party.Id. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 269501. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. We agree. 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. 3. . He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Advanced A.I.
Travis Clark Berlin Nj Address,
Tsp Fund Performance Daily,
Signs A Cancer Man Is Serious About You,
Articles S