Discuss the court decision in this case. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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."). "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Doccol - -SCI 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. pronounced. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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." Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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." Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. We agree. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Would you have reached the . 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. 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. because the facts are presented in documentary form. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. #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. App. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. BLAW 235 Exam 2 Case Studies From Notes Flashcards | Quizlet Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". We agree. 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." September 17, 2010. 134961. 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,
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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 107,880. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. letters. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy "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." Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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." 107,880. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month adult school program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts 107,879. 1. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). Stoll v. Xiong. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Unit 2 case summaries.pdf - Ramirez 1 Joseph Ramirez Mr. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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! Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 1. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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." All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. right of "armed robbery. Applying these figures, the annual value of the litter from de-caking alone (i.e.,which does not include additional volumes of litter from a complete clean out) appears to range from roughly $7,200 to $15,000. You can explore additional available newsletters here. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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.