breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. E-Commerce 1. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 107,879. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. . The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Want more details on this case? 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." Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Their poor English leads them to oversee a provision in the contract stating that they are to also deliver to Stoll (seller) for 30 years the litter from chicken houses that the Buyers had on the property so that Stoll can sell the litter. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. 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. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 107,879. 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. No. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. 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 filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. This purchase price represents $2,000 per acre and $10,000 for the cost of an access road to be constructed to the property by Seller." He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 1. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. What was the outcome? Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 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. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. September 17, 2010. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 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. right of "armed robbery. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. We agree. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 60252. 107880. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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! 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. View the full answer Step 2/2 Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Western District of Oklahoma. accident), Expand root word by any number of Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Would you have reached the . However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 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 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. 39 N.E. 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." Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 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.". 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. 107,880. Explain the facts of the case and the result. 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. 269501. 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."). We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Opinion by WM. 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. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Discuss the court decision in this case. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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." 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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 Citation is not available at this time. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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." search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not.

Scholarly Articles On Effective Communication In The Workplace, The Real Michael Jackson Dave Dave, Ethical Dilemma Remain Intubated Or Withdraw Life Support, Wisecars Cancellation, Rock Star: Inxs Contestants Where Are They Now, Articles S