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." Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 1. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. to the other party.Id. 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 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. 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. 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. 269501. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Docket No. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 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. 2nd Circuit. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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." 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Opinion by Wm. 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. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 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. 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 Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. "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." 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 2010). As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. Want more details on this case? The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Facts. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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." Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. . Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. That judgment is AFFIRMED. STOLL v. XIONG Important Paras The equitable concept of uneonscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Stoll v. Xiong. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 107,879. 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 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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." Loffland Brothers Company v. Over-street, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. What was the outcome? 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." 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. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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." Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 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. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. You're all set! 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. 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. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. 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. Western District of Oklahoma All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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 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?) Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? However, Stoll added a provision in the contract requesting that the buyers deliver the litter of chickens from chicken houses on the property for the next . Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Rationale? 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. 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 107,880. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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 Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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." 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. . 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Stoll contracted to sell the Xiongs a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acre plus $10,000 for a road). Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. "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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. at 1020. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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." 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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.. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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.
Physicians Mutual Eligibility Check For Providers,
Articles S