View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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 v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. to the other party.Id. 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." He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 1. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. 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. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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?) 5. right of "armed robbery. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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 C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the 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 person would accept on the other. Try it free for 7 days! . Stoll v. Xiong. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. September 17, 2010. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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. 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 didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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 equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 8. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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." Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 3. 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. 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." Citation is not available at this time. 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." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 1971 1-101[ 14A-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." 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. 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." He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Docket No. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. 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. 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 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). ACCEPT. 1. 1. 107,879. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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." 107,880. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 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. . Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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 valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. at 1020. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 6. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Stoll v. Xiong. 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 . The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures.
Erin Burnett No Wedding Ring 2019,
Are Fire Pits Legal In Allentown Pa,
Articles S