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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The UCC Book to read! 10th Circuit. 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. "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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. Opinion by Wm. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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. 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. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). September 17, 2010. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 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. 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 Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. Like in Fickel, the actual price 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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." Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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! 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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." The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Toker v. Westerman . Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. 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."). 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." 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. 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. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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." 107880. 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. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 2. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Discuss the court decision in this case. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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." Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com 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. 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.
Sdhc Utility Allowance, Articles S