Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Supreme Court of Michigan. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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.". 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. 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. 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! The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. "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. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. at 1020. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. 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." - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. pronounced. 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. 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." ACCEPT. 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.". 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 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. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Would you have reached the . INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 107,879. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. . Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 9. September 17, 2010. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. 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. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. . CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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 v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. to the other party.Id. 107,879. 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 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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 . 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 269501. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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." 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. September 17, 2010. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. If this transaction closes as anticipated, Buyers shall be obligated to construct a poultry litter shed on the property with a concrete floor measuring at least 43 feet by 80 feet. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. 1. She testified Stoll told her that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him. She did not then understand when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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." Hetherington, Judge. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. 10th Circuit. 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 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. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. Stoll 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). She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 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." Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Stoll claimed his work to level and clear the land justified the higher price.This contract also entitled Stoll to the chicken litter generated on the farm for the next thirty years. 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. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Facts. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. They received little or no education and could. 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." because the facts are presented in documentary form. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Elements: Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. letters. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 107,880. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Western District of Oklahoma. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 1. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts Rationale? For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Toker v. Westerman . He alleged Buyers. 60252. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases 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. 107,879, 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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 filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. 1. (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]. 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. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. 1. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Want more details on this case? 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. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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." CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States.