1. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. That judgment is AFFIRMED. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 2nd Circuit. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 107,880. 4 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. - 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). 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. No. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. "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." Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. We agree. Try it free for 7 days! 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 The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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. 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." accident), Expand root word by any number of Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 8. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 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. 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." Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 107,880. 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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." 107879, 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Opinion by WM. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. 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. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. 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. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. September 17, 2010. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 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. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. "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." Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Toker v. Westerman . Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. wandsworth duty social worker,
John Wall Strengths And Weaknesses, Articles S