Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 107,879. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 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. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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.". For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 1. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). We agree. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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.. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. pronounced. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 10th Circuit. 10th Circuit. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. (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. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. No. 1. View the full answer Step 2/2 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. Opinion by WM. 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. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. 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. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. v. Please check back later. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 107,879, as an interpreter. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Western District of Oklahoma 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. "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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. Elements: It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". to the other party.Id. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 2010). 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. 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. 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. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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." 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." 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. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 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."). Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts "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 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." Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 107,879, as an interpreter. 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. 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." However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter.
Kb Of Na3po4,
Nba G League Open Tryouts 2022,
Garrick Merrifield Family,
Does Imperial College London Give Scholarships To International Students,
Articles S