One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 107,879. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in We agree. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 5. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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.. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. "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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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. 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." Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 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. 1. 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. Hetherington, Judge. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 107,880. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. 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. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com 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. 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." Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. 1971 1-101[ 14A-1-101], et seq., found that "[a]n 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." However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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." 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. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? What was the outcome? Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. 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.". Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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." 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 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." 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 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 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. 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. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 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. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 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. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. 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." 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. Opinion by Wm. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 107,880. 4 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. 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. 1. ACCEPT. 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. 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. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. You're all set! 60252. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. 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. 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, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. 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."). 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.. Opinion by WM. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. 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. 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. Facts. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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." 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. 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. 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 107,879, as an interpreter. 39 N.E. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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.8. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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." Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. "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." Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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.. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. In opposition to defendant's motion on this issue, plaintiff alleges, "GR has shown the settlement was unconscio.. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 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. 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. We agree. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. . However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 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. Chong Lor Xiong, 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 16. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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." Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Supreme Court of Michigan. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 1. 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.

Boston Garden Floor Dead Spots, 1914 Band Nsbm, Verosika Mayday X Male Reader Lemon, Articles S