1. 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 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. App. 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. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Opinion by WM. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Western District of Oklahoma 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. No. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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 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 person would accept on the other. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 134961. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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 v. Xiong. 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. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Try it free for 7 days! - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 1. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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." . VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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 de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. pronounced. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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 . Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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.. 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. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. 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. 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. letters. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 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. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. 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. 107,880. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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 . 8. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. 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. 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. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 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. 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 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."). Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 107,879, as an interpreter. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. accident), Expand root word by any number of 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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.
Booger Brown Road To The Horse 2021, Articles S