Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. 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. 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." 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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." PDF Syllabus Southern California Institute of Law Course: Contracts Ii The trial court found the litter provision unconscionable and granted summary judgment in the buyers favor. 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. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Yes. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. to the other party.Id. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, That judgment is AFFIRMED. 9. 1. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. 7. 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." An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years 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. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. 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.. 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. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed 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. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. No. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. Sed eu magna efficitur, luctus lorem ut, tincidunt arcu. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. 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. 107879, 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. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Opinion by WM. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. 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. 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. They received little or no education and could. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. Compare with Westlaw Opinion 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. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets 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. 1. 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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." breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . at 1020. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. September 17, 2010. Please check back later. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 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. 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. 1. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Hetherington, Judge. letters. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 107,879, as an interpreter. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. 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. 39 N.E. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. 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. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG | Cited Cases - Leagle App. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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." 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. Elements: 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. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. The court affirmed the district courts judgment. "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." Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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." Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Praesent varius sit amet erat hendrerit placerat. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. 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, i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 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. 3. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Opinion by WM. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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. 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. 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. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. 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. 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. His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Melody Boeckman, No. pronounced. Discuss the court decision in this case. 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. As the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals once noted, "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in, The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d, Full title:Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang. 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. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). 107, 879, as an interpreter. 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 (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. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. 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 . 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 He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 107,879. Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: 10. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Supreme Court of Michigan. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Yang testified at deposition that according to Stoll's representations, the litter could be worth $25 per ton. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. (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]. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. business law-chapter 5 Flashcards | Quizlet United States District Courts. 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. Void for Unconscionability Legal Meaning & Law Definition - Quimbee 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, Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis (2012) Distinctive Effects of T Cell Subsets in Neuronal Injury Induced by Cocultured Splenocytes In Vitro and by In Vivo Stroke in Mice. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 60252. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. 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." 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 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. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. 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. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment,7 Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). 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. 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. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. 1. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to 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." 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. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. Couple fails to deliver chicken litter and failing to perform the the 30 year provision stated in the contract. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Best Court Cases (Class + Chapters) Flashcards | Quizlet Citation is not available at this time. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee.. He alleged Buyers. "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."