Raging Bull Stock Lawsuit, Steve Urkel Pick Up Lines, Baby First Tv Shows 2006, Who Is Greg Yao Wrestling Promoter, Articles S

"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." She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. Advanced A.I. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. 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 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. 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." Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 1. . 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. He alleged Buyers. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Western District of Oklahoma. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 2010). Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Stoll v. Xiong. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Docket No. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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. 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 1. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 8. 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. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Elements: 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. "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. 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. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Hetherington, Judge. 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. 107,879. 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. 1. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Try it free for 7 days! C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 7. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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.