stoll v xiong

Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. 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. 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. Advanced A.I. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle 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." Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 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 lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 10th Circuit. View the full answer Step 2/2 Discuss the court decision in this case. Stoll v. Xiong. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". 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." Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 1. Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongThe Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Hetherington, Judge. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 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. 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. to the other party.Id. Try it free for 7 days! He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 39 N.E. 8. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? to the other party.Id. 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com . September 17, 2010. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. 107,880. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 1. 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 couple buys real estate for 130,000. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures.