stoll v xiong stoll v xiong

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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. No. Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 1. 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." The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. 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! 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. 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. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. STOLL v. XIONG :: 2010 :: Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis "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." Western District of Oklahoma. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 1. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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." The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. Toker v. Westerman . 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. 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." FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 2010). We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 10th Circuit. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. The UCC Book to read! He alleged Buyers. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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. 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. 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. 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.". 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." 269501. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students 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). She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 9. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. ACCEPT. 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. Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. We agree. 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. 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 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson "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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? at 1020. Stoll v. Xiong. What was the outcome? Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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." 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." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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."). Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Hetherington, Judge. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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." Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 107,879. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Melody Boeckman, No. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton.