743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. 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. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 60252. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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."). 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. right of "armed robbery. The UCC Book to read! We agree. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. to the other party.Id. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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; 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.". The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. 107,880. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Opinion by Wm. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Rationale? Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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 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. 107879. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. Opinion by WM. "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. 1. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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." make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. to the other party.Id. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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. - 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). 39 N.E. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. right or left of "armed robbery. "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." C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. at 1020. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) 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." 2010). Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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. v. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. ACCEPT. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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." 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 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Hetherington, Judge. 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. 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 107,880. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 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. E-Commerce 1. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 1. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Melody Boeckman, No. "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. 1. 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. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. September 17, 2010. We agree. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Want more details on this case?

Coonskin Park Shelter Map, Letters To Soldiers From Students, Lacrosse Stat Sheet Template Excel, Articles S