4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Plaintiff appealed. Seller shall empty the litter shed completely between growing cycles so that the shed will be available for use by Buyers when needed. Opinion by WM. 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. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 107879. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Citation is not available at this time. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. 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. 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. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 7. 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. 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 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. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. 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. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 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. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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." 1. 1. breached a term in the contact and requested the term's enforcement.252 The contract, drafted by Stoll, included a term . 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 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. 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. Opinion by WM. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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."). 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. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. ACCEPT. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. You're all set! We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Couple neglects to provide the chicken litter and neglects to play out the long term arrangement expressed in the agreement. We affirm the trial court's findings the contract paragraph supporting Stoll's claim is unconscionable and Buyers were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. Farmers used litter to fertilize their crops. 107, 879, as an interpreter. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. They received little or no education and could. Nearby land had sold for $1,200 per acre. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. You can explore additional available newsletters here. COA No. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. We agree. 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. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 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." She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 4. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. 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. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. STOLL v. XIONG 2010 OK CIV APP 110 Case Number: 107880 Decided: 09/17/2010 Mandate Issued: 10/14/2010 DIVISION I THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I RONALD STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 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. Toker v. Westerman . And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. 107,879, as an interpreter. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 5. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Western District of Oklahoma 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? 12 The paragraph at the center of this dispute reads: The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. Rationale? Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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. 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. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. 1971 1-101[ 14A-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." The three-page Agreement to Sell Real Estate appears to be missing a page. 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 Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Fickel v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. 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. 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. 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! Docket No. 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. 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. 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. Elements: Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. 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." Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. 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. 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. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. 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. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. 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. 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. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. 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. near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Here, a nearly reverse situation exists in that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeds that stated. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. 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. 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 asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. 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. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. 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 first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Please check back later. 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. 1976 OK 33, 23, 548 P.2d at 1020. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Stoll v. Xiong. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 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 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. 1. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. 106, United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. 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. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Hetherington, Judge. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. 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. 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. 1. Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? Set out the facts of the Stoll v. Xiong case. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). 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. 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. He alleged Buyers. 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. No. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 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. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a preliminary version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. 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. 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.. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. - 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). 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. 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. 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. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. 3. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. 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.