Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 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 testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 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. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 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. Rationale? COA No. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. 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. Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. 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." "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma - Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 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. Expert Answer 1st step All steps Answer only Step 1/2 Unconscionable contracts are those that are so o. Yang testified: The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. 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. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Opinion by WM. 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. 33-The case Turner Broadcasting v. McDavid is one of my favorite cases in the textbook. 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. 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. 7 Support alimony becomes a vested right as each payment becomes due. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Stoll v. Xiong UNCONSCIONABLE CONTRACTS Chong Lor Xiong and his wife Mee Yang are purchasing property in US. 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. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. 330 (1895) Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp. 543 F.3d 987 (2008) Sullivan v. O'Connor. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. 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. The buyers sold the litter to third parties. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? 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. 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. accident), Expand root word by any number of The Oklahoma Legislature, at 12A O.S. 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. 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. 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. 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. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. 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.. . United States District Court of Northern District of New York, United States District Courts. 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. 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. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Western District of Oklahoma The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. 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. 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. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. Stoll v. Xiong Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained - YouTube Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Advanced A.I. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. "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." 107879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. 39 N.E. 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; He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. 6. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted 2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller a sixty. 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. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. "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, i.e. A few years before this contract, other property in the area sold for one thousand two hundred dollars an acre. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 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. 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." 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], has addressed uneonscionability in the context of the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. 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. September 17, 2010. 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. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. 20 Buyers argue no fair and honest person would propose and no rational person would enter into a contract containing a clause imposing a premium for land and which, without any consideration to them, imposes additional costs in the hundreds of thousands over a thirty-year period that both are unrelated to the land itself and exceed the value of the land. 1. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. 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. 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. At hearing on the motions for summary judgment, Stoll argued the contract was not unconscionable and it was simply a matter of buyer's remorse. search results: Unidirectional search, left to right: in Elements: 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. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. at 1020. Similar motions were filed in companion Case No. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. Opinion by WM. 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.. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. Her deposition testimony to that effect was included as an exhibit to Stoll's response to Buyers' motion for summary judgment. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. They received little or no education and could. Docket No. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301, 305 (2010) (citations omitted). Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. 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. She is a defendant in the companion case, in which she testified she did not think he would take the chicken litter "for free." His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities.