They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. eCase is one of the world's most informative online sources for cases from different courts in United States' Federal and all states, and court cases will be updated continually - legalzone 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. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Western District of Oklahoma. 1. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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 Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. 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. September 17, 2010. 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. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). to the other party.Id. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela 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. 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 lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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. And if unconscionability has any meaning in the law at all, if that is a viable theory at all, then I think this is a prime example of it. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. 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. 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. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. 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." He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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 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." Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. . Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Hetherington, Judge. 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. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases Home Browse Decisions P.3d 241 P.3d 241 P.3d 301 STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. Opinion by Wm. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee 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. 1. Barnes v. Helfenbein, 548 P.2d 1014 | Casetext Search + Citator The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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 v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Powered By www.anylaw.com Stoll v. Xiong 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. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. When they bought a chicken farm next door to Xiong's sister and her husband, seller Ronald Stoll (plaintiff) gave them a preliminary contract to review that specified a price of $2,000 per acre. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 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. "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." 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. "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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 9. Stoll v. Xiong | A.I. Enhanced | Case Brief for Law Students 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 8. 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. 1. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him., when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. right or left of "armed robbery. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. v. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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., 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 Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. Facts. September 17, 2010. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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.8. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. He alleged Buyers. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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 . business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. 1. 1. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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 number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. STOLL v. XIONG, No. 107 - Oklahoma - Case Law - vLex Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. 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." That judgment is AFFIRMED. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec 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. 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. 2nd Circuit. 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.". Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. 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 Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 3. September 17, 2010. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 10th Circuit. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind 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. 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. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. United States District Courts. . Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. 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. 107, 879, as an interpreter. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. ACCEPT. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Yes. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. 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. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. 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. 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 claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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.
Northland High School Teacher Died, Salvadoran Death Traditions, Steve Jones, Kimberly Salary, Kenmore Series 300 Triple Action Agitator Troubleshooting, Harmony Of The Seas Vitality Spa Menu, Articles S