107,879, as an interpreter. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Western District of Oklahoma. 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. 1. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Please check back later. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 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."). 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. 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. 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. 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.". "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." Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. COA No. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 107,879. 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 man would accept on the other. 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. 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.". Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Stoll v. Chong Lor 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, i.e. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. 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. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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. 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." 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. 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. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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 lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. 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. . Toker v. Westerman . 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. Prior to coming to the United States, 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. 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. They received little or no education and could. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. "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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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." The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The UCC Book to read! Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.1 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. 1. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 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." That judgment is AFFIRMED. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Opinion by WM. Rationale? Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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.
Generations Senior Management,
How To Cure Stomach Ulcer And Gastritis,
Notice, Agenda And Minutes Of Meeting Pdf,
Forced Regen Cascadia,
Articles S
