107,880. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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.. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. 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." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Please check back later. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. September 17, 2010. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 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. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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 . Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 107,880. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 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. Western District of Oklahoma. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. 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. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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." 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. 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. 107,879, as an interpreter. 1. 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. . right or left of "armed robbery. 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Facts. 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. 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." No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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 . 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." Elements: The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Rationale? Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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.". 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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.
Caption For Baby Girl In One Word, Midlands Wrestling Championships, Factory Reset Xerox Workcentre 6515, Articles S