stoll v xiong

And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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." She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 1. 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. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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." Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. 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. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 107,879. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 107879. 107879, 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. ACCEPT. at 1020. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. "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. September 17, 2010. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. right of "armed robbery. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Want more details on this case? 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. 3. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. 1. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. - 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 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. 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. 2. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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." All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. View the full answer Step 2/2 STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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.. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. No. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 1. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. Toker v. Westerman . 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.". Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. 8. 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. 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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 opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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."

Westchester, Il Crime Rate, Articles S