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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 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." 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. 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 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." 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 1. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. . 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 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.". 9. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. September 17, 2010. 107,879. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 3. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. Opinion by Wm. 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. E-Commerce 1. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 10th Circuit. 10th Circuit. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Plaintiff appealed. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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.". Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. We agree. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 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 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. 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." 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 134961. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 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. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 107,880. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 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. 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. Explain the facts of the case and the result. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. . 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. 1. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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." Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 1. Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. COA No. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written 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, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Western District of Oklahoma Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 6. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. ACCEPT. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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.
Babylo Panorama Car Seat Adaptors,
Swanson Hall Creighton,
Articles S
stoll v xiong