We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. "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. 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. 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. 1. Try it free for 7 days! Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Contemporary Business Law, Global Edition - Henry R - Pearson 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. 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. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. BLAW Ch 12 Flashcards | Quizlet business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. He alleged Buyers. 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 planned to sell or trade the litter. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 1. 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. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," le., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 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. . 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. 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. 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." 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. 9. at 1020. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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.. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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."). ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. 7. 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. Stoll v. Xiong. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Farnsworth & Sanger 9th - Casebriefs 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 2. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw They received little or no education and could. 107,879. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. #8 Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang, 241 P.3d 301 (Oklahoma, 2010) Stoll, a property owner, entered into a land installment contract in 2005 to sell 60 acres of constructed by Stoll. 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. 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. at 1020. 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.". 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. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. - 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). 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.". Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. "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." 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 opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 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. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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." 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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 . PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii 60252. 3. United States District Courts. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of | Chegg.com Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. letters. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. E-Commerce 1. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Bendszus M, Nieswandt B, Stoll G. (2007) Targeting platelets in acute experimental stroke: impact of glycoprotein Ib, VI, and IIb/IIIa blockade on infarct size, functional . 1. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. Discuss the court decision in this case. 269501. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 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. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 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 question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. 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." 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 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 testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 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 UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 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?) Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. View the full answer Step 2/2 https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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." His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Melody Boeckman, No. 1. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 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. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter.