Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. right of "armed robbery. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 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." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. "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." 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." In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Plaintiff appealed. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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 3. 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. 1. September 17, 2010. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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.. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Western District of Oklahoma. 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). 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 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He alleged Buyers. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. September 17, 2010. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. 107880. That judgment is AFFIRMED. E-Commerce 1. 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. 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. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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." 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. 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. "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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. 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. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw 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. STOLL v. XIONG | 2010 OK CIV APP 110 - Casemine whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. "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." 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 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. Try it free for 7 days! 2nd Circuit. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." You can explore additional available newsletters here. You're all set! 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. 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. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Supreme Court of Michigan. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Melody Boeckman, No. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW "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. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. What was the outcome? Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 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 the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 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. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . accident), Expand root word by any number of Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Stoll v. Xiong. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. The basic test of unconscionability of a contract is whether under the circumstances existing at the time of making of the contract, and in light of the general commercial background and commercial need of a particular case, clauses are so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise one of the parties. at 1020. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. 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, 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.. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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 purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 107,879. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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 . Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 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. 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. 4. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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."). 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. Doccol - -SCI 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 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." Discuss the court decision in this case. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. We agree. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 1. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 5. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide."
