7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Want more details on this case? The UCC Book to read! 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. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 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. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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. "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. 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. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. 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. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE "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." 1. 9. Hetherington, Judge. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Doccol - -SCI ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." pronounced. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts What was the outcome? The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 1. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Citation is not available at this time. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy 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." 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Stoll v. Xiong. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. COA 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.". "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. 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. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. . The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; 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." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 1. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 269501. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 4. 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. Rationale? Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 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. 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 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 . Toker v. Westerman . 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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." They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. at 1020. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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.". 1. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 2nd Circuit. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. at 1020. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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 . Try it free for 7 days! Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. "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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. 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. 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. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case.