Longmont Recent Obituaries, Beverly Hills High School Basketball Tournament, Ancient Greek Symbol For Courage, Upfront The Forger Answer Key, Yoga Exercises For Hiatal Hernia, Articles S

They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 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." 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. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. No. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 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.. 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."). Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain 1. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (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.. 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. 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." 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com 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, 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." Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. Toker v. Westerman . 107,880. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. App. 134961. 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. 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."). She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. 2. 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." Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 1. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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." The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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." 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. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. 1. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 107,880. 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. 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. 2010). The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Doccol - -SCI STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle . 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.