The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. 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. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement 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. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson 1. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 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. 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. 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. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 60252. 10th Circuit. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. September 17, 2010. The UCC Book to read! We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. You're all set! The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. 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. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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.. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 2. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 107,879, as an interpreter. 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 testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. 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. No. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Try it free for 7 days! 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." Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Melody Boeckman, No. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. right of "armed robbery. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 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. "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 relied on a relative to interpret for them. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 5. 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. He alleged Buyers. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Stoll v. Xiong. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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 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. 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." Western District of Oklahoma. 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.". 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". E-Commerce 1. We agree. 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. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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." 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary pronounced. Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary STOLL v. CHONG LOR 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.
Cayman Islands To Jamaica Ferry, Launch Creader 529 Update Tool, Gila River Mugshots, Articles S