4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. 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."). 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. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. 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. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 1. 9. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. Western District of Oklahoma. Yes. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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 . Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. 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. 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. 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. 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. 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. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. 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. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 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; Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 107,879. Citation is not available at this time. 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. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 107,880. 60252. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. 1. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. 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. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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. United States District Courts. 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. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. We agree. 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. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant 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. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Under the contract, the buyers paid Stoll two thousand dollars per acre and an additional ten thousand dollars for construction of an access road. 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." 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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! 107,880. The Court went on to note: 17 "The question of uneonscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 107,880. 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." That judgment is AFFIRMED. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 In posuere eget ante id facilisis. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. 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. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. View the full answer Step 2/2 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. We agree. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. 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." 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. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. 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. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. . 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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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. Thus, the court agreed with the defendants that 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, imposed additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both were unrelated to the land itself and exceeded the value of the land. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 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 asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. E-Commerce 1. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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. 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. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. at 1020. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 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). 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. 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 . 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. The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. - 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). Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. He alleged Buyers. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 2 The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." "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." 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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.. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. 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 Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. The 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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." 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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.