She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." That judgment is AFFIRMED. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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." Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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, An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 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. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. 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. 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. 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. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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.. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Decisions. September 17, 2010. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. 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. Docket No. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. . The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 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 . All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement 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. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 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 estate located in the same size as Buyers' houses took one semi load of shavings at a cost of $1,600 per load. 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. 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. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 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. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. STOLL v. XIONG2010 OK CIV APP 110Case Number: 107880Decided: 09/17/2010Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010DIVISION ITHE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I. RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. 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. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 3. 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. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. We agree. Toker v. Westerman . 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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."). 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 107880. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Stoll v. Xiong " 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of 44 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Barnes v. Helfenbein Supreme Court of Oklahoma Mar 16, 1976 1976 OK 33 (Okla. 1976)Copy Citations Download PDF Check Treatment Summary 1. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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 actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. 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. letters. 2. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Citation is not available at this time. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may "substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis" because the facts are presented in documentary form. The UCC Book to read! . 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. "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." 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. right of "armed robbery. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Elements: The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Advanced A.I. 107879. 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. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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. "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." You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the 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. 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.. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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 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. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. 1999) Howe v. Palmer 956 N.E.2d 249 (2011) United States Life Insurance Company v. Wilson 18 A.3d 110 (2011) Wucherpfennig v. Dooley 351 N.W.2d 443 (1984) Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela E-Commerce 1. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. ", (bike or scooter) w/3 (injury or 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. 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." You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. at 1020. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. to the other party.Id. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. 1. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month "adult school" program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. 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. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. right or left of "armed robbery. 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. 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. Facts. Neither Xiong nor Yang could read more than a couple of words. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. ACCEPT. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. 10th Circuit. 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. Like in Fickel, the actual price 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." 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. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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.1971 1-101, et seq., found that "[a]n 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." Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Yes. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. 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. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. Plaintiff appealed. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. 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. 134961. (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]. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. 107,879, as an interpreter. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. pronounced. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to You can explore additional available newsletters here. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 4 Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. No. 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. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable.