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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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 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). 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. (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. The purchase price is described as One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. letters. 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." Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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. 10th Circuit. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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 buyers sold the litter to third parties. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 6. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? You're all set! 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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 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." View the full answer Step 2/2 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. v. 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." Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. United States District Courts. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, 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." Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 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. 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. Would you have reached the . The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. We agree. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. What was the outcome? 1. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. Advanced A.I. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. We agree. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. They received little or no education and could. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. We agree. 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. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. 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." 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 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. 269501. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 2nd Circuit. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Western District of Oklahoma 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 39 N.E. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. to the other party.Id. 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. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 8. 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. Opinion by Wm. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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.. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. "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." Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. 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. 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. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. at 1020. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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 (Okla. Civ. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Opinion by WM. 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. ACCEPT. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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 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. 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." Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Yes. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery The UCC Book to read! 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 1. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. After 2008, rising oil prices drove up the cost of commercial fertilizer, but before then he had not sold litter for more than $12 per ton. 7. 107,879. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Stoll v. Xiong. 318, 322 (N.D. Okla. 1980), accord, 12A O.S.2001 2-302, Oklahoma Code Comment ("Note that the determination of 'unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. right of "armed robbery. 4. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case ExplainedDeciphering Scholarly Publishing Contracts: Books Negotiating Literary Translation Contracts UCC Codes: UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice Sign this way \u0026 don't contract! Please check back later. 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. 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. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. "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. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Supreme Court of Michigan. 107880. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Compare with Westlaw Opinion 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. The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. No. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 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. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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.