All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. ACCEPT. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. 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.". 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. 107,880. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. Please check back later. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. to the other party.Id. Discuss the court decision in this case. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 2. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Explain the facts of the case and the result. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Page 1 of 6 SYLLABUS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF LAW COURSE: CONTRACTS II CREDIT: 3 Units LOCATION: Ventura Campus DATES: Thursday, 6:30-9:30 PM (1/16/2020-4/23/2020); The Final Exam is on 5/7/2020. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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 contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. 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. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. 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.. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. pronounced. 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 1980), accord, 12A O.S. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 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. 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. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Plaintiff appealed. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of 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). 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. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. 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. 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 Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. He alleged Buyers. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. "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. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real 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." 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. Search over 120 million documents from over 100 countries including primary and secondary collections of legislation, case law, regulations, practical law, news, forms and contracts, books, journals, and more. 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. because the facts are presented in documentary form. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 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. 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. 2010). Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. 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, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Stoll v. Xiong. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. . 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. 9. You're all set! 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." 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. 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."). 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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." His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Plaintiffs petition claimed that defendants breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asked for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable, granted Buyers' motion for summary judgment, denied Stoll's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Buyers on Stoll's petition. 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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; 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. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. He also claimed that he was entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, was exempt from being so taken. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 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.. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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 Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. 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. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. App. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 6. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. E-Commerce 1. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 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. 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. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 8. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Facts. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 1. 1. 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. 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. Private DEMYSTIFYING PUBLISHING CONTRACTS 6 Key Clauses Found in Commercial Contracts The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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.". Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 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. 1. 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. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 107,879, as an interpreter. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 107,879, as an interpreter. make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 1. 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. 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. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence.