Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 39 N.E. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Toker v. Westerman . He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Try it free for 7 days! 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. 1. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. ACCEPT. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.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. Advanced A.I. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 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. Hetherington, Judge. 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. 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. COA No. She did not then understand "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. 1. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Would you have reached the . Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 1. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case September 17, 2010. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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." 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 1. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 134961. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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. 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. 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. 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. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. 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. "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. 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). 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 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. 1. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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." 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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; 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. 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. Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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." right of "armed robbery. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 269501. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 3. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. "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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. App. right or left of "armed robbery. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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! 107880. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. 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. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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." Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Solved Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 | Chegg.com STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. He alleged Buyers. Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson