The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. at 1020. to the other party.Id. 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. 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. 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. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 1. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Western District of Oklahoma. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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; Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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 The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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 a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 107,880. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. Would you have reached the . 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. 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. 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. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S.2001 2-302,9 has addressed unconscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase 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.". 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 269501. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. No. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 10th Circuit. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 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." Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. 6. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 1. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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.
British Shorthair Kittens For Sale In Alabama,
Timaru Court News September 2020,
Holiday Homes Doohoma,
Where Was The Skyrizi Commercial Filmed,
Articles S
