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." Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". ACCEPT. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Please check back later. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 107,879, as an interpreter. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. 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 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. 107,879. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 3. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. 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." 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. at 1020. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S.1971 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." 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." 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. 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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. The trial court found the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable as a matter of law and entered judgment in Buyers' favor. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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 couple buys real estate for 130,000. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 107,879, as an interpreter. 10th Circuit. 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. 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. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment,7 Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Toker v. Westerman . 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. 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. 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.". 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. 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. 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. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 107,880. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. Advanced A.I. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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,, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. pronounced. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. 7. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 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." Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Elements: Citation is not available at this time. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. "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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. September 17, 2010. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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." 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 1. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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.. 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."
Man Found Dead In Grass Valley,
Jacksonville, Nc News Obituaries,
Articles S