CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 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. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. 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. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students 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. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. No. 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. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet 107,879. 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. Docket No. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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 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. 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." Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. United States District Courts. 1. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. "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. 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. 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 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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." Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 | Casetext Search + Citator Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., 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. E-Commerce 1. 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." 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. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Discuss the court decision in this case. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 107,880. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. 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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Stoll v. Xiong. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Opinion by Wm. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. They received little or no education and could.
