1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 1. 1. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Please check back later. 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. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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.". letters. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 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. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. 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. 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. Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. "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. to the other party.Id. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 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. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 9. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Docket No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Toker v. Westerman . 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. He alleged Buyers. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Hetherington, Judge. 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. 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. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. You're all set! Melody Boeckman, No. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 107,879, as an interpreter. 107880. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 107879. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. "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." Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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. 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. - 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). All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 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." The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. The UCC Book to read! . Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Western District of Oklahoma 8. 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. 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.. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 1. 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. 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." 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 Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. We agree. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. Would you have reached the . because the facts are presented in documentary form. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 107,880. 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. 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. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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.. 107,879, as an interpreter. COA No. Opinion by WM. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): Uniform Commercial Code 2-302 is literally inapplicable to contracts not involving the sale of goods, but it has proven very influential in non-sales cases. 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. 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. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. 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. 1. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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." United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Rationale? Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. 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.