Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 1. 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. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. App. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. because the facts are presented in documentary form. Try it free for 7 days! Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . 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! 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. 6. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 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. 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." When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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. 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." Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. at 1020. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 1. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. The UCC Book to read! 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." Docket No. 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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 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. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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 . The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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). 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 . He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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." 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 107,879. 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.. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Facts. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 1. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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. 269501. 3. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary 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. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. 134961. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Western District of Oklahoma. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. . Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Rationale? Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy Explain the facts of the case and the result. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp.
Dillard Funeral Home Pickens, Sc, Texas Basketball Player Rankings, Articles S