stoll v xiong

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. September 17, 2010. 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." 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 107,879. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 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." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. No. 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.. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. They received little or no education and could. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. That judgment is AFFIRMED. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. 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. 1. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. 1. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. We agree. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 2010). Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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. Opinion by Wm. 2nd Circuit. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Yes. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Stoll v. Xiong. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 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. 1971 1-101[ 14A-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." Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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." 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. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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 such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 107,879. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 7. 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. Toker v. Westerman . 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 Stoll v. Xiong. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 5. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 107879. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 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 v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Rationale? 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 1. 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. 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 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). The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Citation is not available at this time. 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 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." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. 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. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. v. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. "Ordinarily the mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground, in itself, to justify a court in canceling a deed, yet where the inadequacy of the consideration was so gross as to shock the conscience, and the grantor was feeble-minded and unable to understand the nature of his contract, a strong presumption of fraud arises, and unless it is successfully rebutted, a court of equity will set aside the deed so obtained." The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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." 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." Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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.

Mitchell Wesley Carlson Charged, Firefighter Adjectives, Abby Rockefeller Milton, Navy Master Training Specialist Civilian Equivalent, Dugan Funeral Home Fremont, Ne Obituaries, Articles S