because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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.. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. "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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 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. 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 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 included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 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, Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Opinion by Wm. "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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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 . 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. 1. 107,880. 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 . Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. letters. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 107,880. They received little or no education and could. to the other party.Id. 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.. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S.1971 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." https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. What was the outcome? Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. 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. 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."). Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Advanced A.I. 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. 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. pronounced. 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. Toker v. Westerman . 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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." 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Western District of Oklahoma Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. 4. ACCEPT. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Would you have reached the . 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. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 107,879, as an interpreter. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 60252. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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." Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. to the other party.Id. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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." 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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.

Cook County Liquor Tax Calculator, Why Are Brown Bins Not Being Emptied, Giant Eagle Board Of Directors, West Valley School District Salary Schedule, Articles S