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. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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. 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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. 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 trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 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." The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 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. Citation is not available at this time. Opinion by WM. 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. 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. 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. 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. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. 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. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. 7. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Want more details on this case? An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. 107880. 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. 39 N.E. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked 3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. 3. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBlond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. - 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). 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." His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F.Supp. Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang are husband and wife. 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. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Stoll v. Xiong. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. CONTACT INFO: 805-758-8202; Email vgtradelaw@aol.com Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. "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." 6. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 ) Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 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; Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. COA No. 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." Would you have reached the . 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 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. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. September 17, 2010. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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." Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. FACTS 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. 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. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Stoll v. Xiong Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. GLOBAL LAW Contract Law in China " The movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from status to contract." Sir Henry Maine Ancient Law, Chapter 5 (1861) Introduction to Formation and Requirements of Contracts Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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 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. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. The Xiong's purchased land for 130,000. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. What was the outcome? Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 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. 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. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. 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. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. 8. 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. 10th Circuit. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. 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. 1. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. View the full answer Step 2/2 "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." Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. letters. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 2. 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. (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]. 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. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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. 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Explain the facts of the case and the result. For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. 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. 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 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. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. The buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . 3. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. We agree. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 60252. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. 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. 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. (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 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. 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 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 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. 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. Facts. 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. 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. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. 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.. Opinion by Wm. 1. 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.
Pet Friendly Cabins In Smoky Mountains,
Infrared Thermometer Model Fc Ir202 User Manual,
Articles S