Was the chicken litter clause in the land purchase contract unconscionable? 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 court affirmed the district courts judgment. OFFICE HOURS: By appointment only and before/after class (limited). 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. 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. It was the plaintiffs idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. 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. 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. to the other party.Id. 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. 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."). Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (Okla. Civ. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are is a Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Best in class Law School Case Briefs | Facts: Spouses Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (plaintiffs) are both Laotian immigrants. Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Seller shall have all rights to the litter for a period of 306 years for [sic] the date of closing. 107,879. INSTRUCTOR: Virginia Goodrich, Esq. 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, 5. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. STOLL v. CHONG LOR XIONG. 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. 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. 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." They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. at 1020. . Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. 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. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. 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. What was the outcome? 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. That judgment is AFFIRMED. 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. CASE 9.6 Stoll v. Xiong 9. 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 Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". They claim this demonstrates how unreasonably favorable to one party the chicken litter provisions are and how those provisions are "the personification of the kind of inequality and oppression that courts have found is the hallmark of unconscionability.". As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. 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. 7. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. They received little or no education and could. The parties here provided evidence relating to their transaction. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Xiong and Yang contracted with Ronald Stoll to purchase sixty acres of land. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. Stoll v. Xiong. Stoll valued the litter at about two hundred sixteen thousand dollars. 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. 14 Stoll argues the trial court erred in finding the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law, "by considering the fairness of the contract," and by considering "anything other than fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or illegality of the contract." Xiong testified at deposition that they raised five flocks per year in their six houses. 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. Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/stoll-v-xiongDid we just become best friends? 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. She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". 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. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. 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. Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 1. 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. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. Get free summaries of new Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! But do courts enforce terribly unfair contracts? The opposing motions for summary judgment in this case and those filed in companion Case No. 3 The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. Prior to coming to the United States, defendant Xiong, who was from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." 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 person would accept on the other. 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. 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. 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. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? 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. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. 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. The Xiongs asserted that the agreement was inappropriate. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. No. Appeal From The District Court Of Delaware County, Oklahoma; Honorable Robert G. Haney, Trial Judge. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. 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. One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. "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 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." 10th Circuit. Facts. 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. He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Compare with Westlaw Opinion No. 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. 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. CHONG LOR XIONG and MEE YANG, Defendants/Appellees. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. 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." For thirty years, the estimated value of the de-caked chicken litter using Stoll's $12 value would be $216,000. 1:09CV1284 (MAD/RFT). whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." 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. Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph.8. 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. 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. 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." 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons' contract. We agree. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Yes. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. No. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. An order granting summary relief, in whole or in part, disposes solely of law questions and hence is reviewable by a de novo standard. The number is hand-written in this agreement and typed in the paragraph in the companion case, but both contain the same text. 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. Defendants Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang were husband and wife. September 17, 2010. You can explore additional available newsletters here. DIGITAL LAW Electronic Contracts and Licenses 2. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law. No. 6. 4 Xiong and Yang are husband and wife. App. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. Globalrock Networks, Inc. v. MCI Commc'ns Servs., Inc., No. 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. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 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 . 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Toker v. Westerman . Lastly, the court ruled that the consideration actually to be paid under the contract far exceeded that stated. 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. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. 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. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 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. Supreme Court of Michigan. The couple buys real estate for 130,000. That judgment is AFFIRMED. Heres how to get more nuanced and relevant Integer semper venenatis felis lacinia malesuada. She testified Stoll told her "that we had to understand that we had signed over the litter to him." She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery We agree. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. That judgment is AFFIRMED. "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. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Stoll filed a breach-of-contract claim against the buyers. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. However, the interpreter didnt understand the litter provision. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. In 2005, defendants contractedto purchase from plaintiff Ronald Stoll as Seller, a sixty-acre parcel of real estate. 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. Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 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. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Midfirst Bank v. Safeguard Props., LLC, Case No. They request reformation of the contract or a finding the contract is invalid. 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. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. 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 buyers relied on a relative to interpret for them. 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. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. 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. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. Did the court act appropriately in your opinion? He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Defendant did not then understand when or what paperwork they had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters. 2001 2-302[ 12A-2-302], Oklahoma Code Comment (`;Note that the determination of `"unconscionable' is one of law for the court."). Buyers shall place the litter from their poultry houses in the litter shed at the end of the growing cycle. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. "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. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you.
Is Clay Ballard Related To Jimmy Ballard, Matt Waters Unimog, Articles S