breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee." 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." 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." 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 . 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. 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! September 17, 2010. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 107,879, as an interpreter. September 17, 2010. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Cases and Materials on Contracts - 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. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec 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. 107879. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . 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.". She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Would you have reached the . Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain 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. 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. Try it free for 7 days! Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | 241 P.3d 301 (2010) - Leagle We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee.. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 1. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 39 N.E. 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." 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Western District of Oklahoma. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable, granted Buyers' motion for summary judgment, denied Stoll's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Buyers on Stoll's petition. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. 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. Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. . People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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. The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 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. right of "armed robbery. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 1. 107,880. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 10th Circuit. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet, 758 P.2d 813 - Casetext