stoll v xiong

Rationale? Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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.". He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. at 1020. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 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. 1. 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." Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. 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. 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. Docket No. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. What was the outcome? We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. pronounced. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. 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 purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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 Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. It has many times been used either by analogy or because it was felt to embody a generally accepted social attitude of fairness going beyond its statutory application to sales of goods. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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 They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. 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. Toker v. Westerman . CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. Elements: Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Western District of Oklahoma. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Facts. "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. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. . 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. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. 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. 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." 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 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.. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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 person would accept on the other. 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. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 60252. "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." They received little or no education and could. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road.

What's Smaller Than A Preon, Former Wsyx Reporters, Monocore Muzzle Brake, List Of Nascar Spotters 2022, Trailer Parks In Zephyrhills, Florida, Articles S