An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Citation is not available at this time. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 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. 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. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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.". That judgment is AFFIRMED. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. 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. Toker v. Westerman . Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 107,879. 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. "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. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. CIV-17-231-D, GlobalRock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., 1:09-CV-1284 (MAD/RFT), In re The MARRIAGE OF BOECKMAN. (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]. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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." make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 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. 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. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 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. 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." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Discuss the court decision in this case. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 6. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). No. 1. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. "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." After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 7. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Supreme Court of Michigan. 39 N.E. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 107,879, as an interpreter. 1. 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 . Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. 1. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. 9. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. to the other party.Id. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. View the full answer Step 2/2 Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. September 17, 2010. 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. 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. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Hetherington, Judge. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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.. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries to the other party.Id. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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.. What was the outcome? Facts. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. Advanced A.I. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 134961. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 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.". 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. 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. 107,879. 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. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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." Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? at 1020. 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. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. We agree. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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 person would accept on the other. 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.