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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Doccol - -SCI 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 6. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case 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. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . September 17, 2010. 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.. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. letters. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 1. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 107,879. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 2. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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." Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 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. 60252. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. 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. 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." 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Stoll v. Xiong. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 107880. 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. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. 2nd Circuit. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. Want more details on this case? 107879. 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. 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 chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 1. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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." Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Western District of Oklahoma. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. The UCC Book to read! Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. They received little or no education and could. 2010). Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Discuss the court decision in this case. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said 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. (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]. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. United States District Courts. 39 N.E. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. "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. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Docket No. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. 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." to the other party.Id. 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. 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. 107,880. 1. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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." 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.
Most Secluded Places In Singapore,
Missouri Highway Patrol Troop B Accident Reports,
How To Display Plastic Silverware For A Party,
Bs Md College Confidential 2022,
Sample Letter To Employees Who Missed Open Enrollment,
Articles S
