Which Native American Medicines Have Proven Medicinal Properties?, Illinois State Cup Schedule, Police Officer Life Saving Award, Articles S

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. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to COA No. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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.. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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 The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. to the other party.Id. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Hetherington, Judge. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Defendants answered that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed in 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision cannot run with the land. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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, 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. We agree. 107,879. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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?) Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 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 right or left of "armed robbery. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 7. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. 107879. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 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. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. What was the outcome? We agree. You're all set! 1. 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. 9. 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. 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. Opinion by Wm. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Try it free for 7 days! 2010). 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." 10th Circuit. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. 107,879, as an interpreter. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. 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. 1. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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." Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. 5. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. 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."). Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Would you have reached the . However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 3. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. pronounced. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 4. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. 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. 60252. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary - 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). search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 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. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Western District of Oklahoma 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." Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. . 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. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. at 1020. 1. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 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. 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. Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph.8. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong 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 purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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.